Are you being facetious or did you find truth in the Holy Catholic Church? If the latter, right on brother! I was a cradle Catholic that went away at 13 and didn’t come back until 43. You should have seen the look on my Priest’s face when I told him that it was 30 years since my last confession!
@@jeffjacobson59 FACTS" --The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13 --The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41 FACTS: About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath" Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174. "The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893. "The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day? "Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day. "Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? "Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910. What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change or the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D. FACTS: Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday) Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday) Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday) Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday) Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday) Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday) John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, (Sunday)
@@jeffjacobson59 the 10 commandments are the law of God. They are one unit. One cannot mix-and-match Remember two things as well: the 10 commandments are the law of God. They are one unit. One cannot mix-and-match, edit, alter, or change any one of them without damaging the whole. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy is just as valid as thou shalt not steal or kill. If you’ve broken any one of them, it is like breaking them all. Also, the Sabbath means rest from work. It does not mean a church service, singing, communion, preaching, or prayer. We do those things every day. That does not make those days a “Sabbath”. Some so-called “proofs” of the Sabbath being “changed” involve saying that someone prayed (or anything else) on a day other than the seventh. So what? >>>>>Mary is worshipped: “…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son…” (Vatican Council II, p. 420) >>>>About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath" Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174. "The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893. "The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day? "Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day. "Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? "Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910. What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
I spoke with a Biblical literalist who was a Southern Baptist a few years ago, and even he admitted the early Christians resembled that of what we see in Catholicism. Knowing that; why he remains a Southern Baptist beats me.
@YAJUN YUAN not really. The Church is not "selective" per se, as you present it in your comment. He magisterium upholds doctrine and true teachings. There are letters written by Saints, Church Fathers etc. that do not hold Jesus's teachings. For instance, St. Augustine has written heretical letters BEFORE he converted and became Christian. Sometimes people (either intentionally or out of ignorance) will quote from those heretical letters. It is later, as a convert to the Church, that St. Augustine has approved manuscripts defending the Faith.
@YAJUN YUAN the problem is...Early Church fathers are Very Catholic...and if there are errors , which they disagree with the Magisterium...These errors are so minimal.... For Protestantism ....They need to really Delete 2/3 of the Early Church fathers writings to make it look like protestant...
@YAJUN YUAN The Apostolic fathers even gave names to the Heretics at that time...so basically, there are already Cults with various names, who are enemies of the apostolic Fathers... 🙄🙄
Jesus was literally telling John in the book of the Apocalypse to write to POLYCARP in Smyrna. My mind was blown when I saw that connection. The Early Church was the Catholic Church is such an amazing book by Joe. Love it.
@YAJUN YUAN Him being 27 is irrelevant. St. Stephen was 29 when he died and he was a deacon (although deacons in apostolic times were also priests in practice). St. John the Apostle was in his late teens early 20s roughly when Jesus started his ministry. Talk about a young bishop! A modern example would be Cardinal Arinze who became a Bishop at 32! So a young Bishop is rare but not bizarre. Also since Polaycarp was not only the first Bishop of Smyrna, but the close disciple of John I wouldn't put it past John to make his closest pupil a Bishop young and early.
As a Catholic Christian I appreciate that even Martin Luther himself knew the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. Quote, “Probably the most compelling evidence in support of the truth claims of the Catholic Church outside of scripture and the Church fathers, probably comes from Martin Luther himself who wrote in 1522AD in a sermon, "Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc.," - Sermon for the Sunday after Christ's Ascension; John 15:26-16:4, page 265, paragraph 28. Notice the use of words "The true church". In other words Martin Luther is conceding that the Catholic church is the true church. A few years later (1537AD) Martin Luther would write, "We concede - as we must - that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament (Holy Eucharist), and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" - Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16, Vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304. Clearly the above is an admission of the preeminence of the church of Rome that the father of the reformation is admitting.” God bless you.
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division. Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority. Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all. Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation. As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like. And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody. I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences. And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
@@grandpahand7410 BTW: Please realize that the quotes I sited are from a couple of sermons that are much longer where Luther justifies his split from the Church for many reasons. Like all heretics they will justify anything they do.
@@Spiritof76Catholic I realize that. I was just looking to paste out the test so I can do further research without having to go back into UA-cam all the time. Thanks.
As an Orthodox Christian I would say that when St. Ignatius says that it is necessary to be in agreement with Rome, he means that this is necessary for the sake of church unity, since Rome is the first see in importance, and the other churches look to Rome for leadership. He isn't saying that Rome cannot err. Today even some Roman Catholics claim that the current pope is a heretic. What matters is not blind obedience to Rome, but maintaining the faith once handed to the apostles.
“Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans..” - Ignatius letter to the Romans Intro “..You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force”- Ignatius letter to the Romans chapter 3
Those "catholic" that calls the pope the heretic are in schism. They just start to become "protestants". Martin Luther was a Catholic monk before he started the protestant movement.
I am not sure I agree with your conclusion, even given your interpretation. It is true that we may not always agree with everything the Pope says or does. We can criticize the pope. Paul criticized St Peter and rebuked him. The papacy is protected from leading the Church astray, meaning the Pope is guaranteed to never officially teach anything contrary to the faith in his official capacity (encyclicals, ex cathedra twachings, bulls, etc...). The Bishop of Rome is also unique in that he alone holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If your interpretation is correct, we should expect a softening of the language over time, yet when we get to Irenaeus who knew two of John's disciples we are told Rome is the "very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority." This seems contrary to your loose interpretation of Ignatius
I can only answer that at the time Irenaeus wrote this, the church of Rome had not yet departed from the Orthodox Christian faith. As a result of its departure from that faith, (in the eleventh century, if not earlier) it separated itself from the Church, the body of Christ. Therefore, within the Church of Christ, the bishop of Rome no longer has any authority.@@daddydaycareky
@@William_Farmer this is a subjective opinion. I think it would be more accurate to say that you personally reject the authority of the Pope after a certain period of time because you personally disagree with a certain teaching or action.
I’d like to think of myself as a pretty well educated Catholic, since I spend a fair amount of time studying our doctrine and its origins. However, listening to gentlemen like this expound on their knowledge base makes me feel terribly ignorant. There is so much I don’t know. I feel truly blessed to be able to listen to this particular podcast and a few others.
>>WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD NAMED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special??? WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special??? Book, chapter and verse!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
It is jaw-dropping to see that there are so many people who fervently believe that the Church established by the Apostles of Jesus Christ was Protestant, 1500 years before Protestantism existed in any way, shape or form. That is ignorance, delusion and bigotry on a scale that is hard to believe.
When did the Church stop being conciliar? There doesn’t seem to be anything in scripture or in the church fathers that suggests that the bishop of Rome had any supremacy over councils, at least not in the unilateral, infallible way defined by Vatican I. Could Peter have overturned the Council of Jerusalem on his own? What about Silvester and Nicaea? I have a hard time hearing the claim of novelty against Protestants when a similar novelty exists as to the highest form of authority in the church on the Roman Catholic side.
the Bishop of Rome has Authority because PEter died there and the predecessor of the Bishops of Rome is St. Peter... ... You don't find the place where the apostles died in the bible because This is something found in the writings and witness of the Early Christians...NOT the Bible since the bible does not talk about the places of the Death of the Apostles... 🙄🙄 Now...When it comes to Authority of St. Peter...The Early Christians have always used Matthew 16:18-19 as proof of Authority of ST. PEter....This verse has always been the Early Christian tradition of interpretation of Authority of ST. Peter, which Protestants suddenly twisted and denied... 🙄🙄
Orthodox catechumen here. The common defense I hear from my Catholic friends, whom I love, is that papal infallibility has only been used twice. It’s something like a veto. In Vatican I it’s depicted as something that the pope can declare on any matter of faith. However to me it doesn’t matter how many times it has been used, the fact that it is there is not in line with anything we see in the ancient church, and at the time many bishops outside of Rome opposed its passing. You’re absolutely right that, as we see in the early council of Jerusalem, early Rome was not first ABOVE equals as portrayed by Catholics now, but rather he was first among equals. Peter did not lead the Council of Jerusalem, for instance, as Jerusalem was not under his jurisdiction. Rome used to be in communion with, and even was first among equals with, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, the other Holy Sees. However, when Rome excommunicated the rest of its church in the east for not recognizing it as having authority ABOVE them, Rome lost that privileged seat. They went their own way. They portray Protestants in this video as not having much historical backing, which is true. This video should not be “The old church was Catholic”, but rather “the old church was not Protestant.”
@@Sergi25026 that's a complete LIE...if you dig deeper in History, Rome and PEter have authority....The Typical Mathew 16 :18-19 was even Quoted in the Ecumenical council.... 3RD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, SESSION 3 "Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys🙄🙄 of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever🙄🙄 both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed POPE Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc." -----3RD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, SESSION 3
1. What came first, the Word of God in the Church or the Bible? 2. When did the Bible, as a book come into the world? 3. Who compiled and translated the scriptures into the book of the Bible? 4. Who numbered and added chapters & verses to the Bible so things were easier to navigate? 5. Who preserved and kept the book of the Bible alive during all ages? 6. What group of people were inspired by the Holy Spirit as to which texts should be in the book of the Bible? 7. Who then removed books from the Bible on their own accord to create their own narrative? 8. Who said they would never leave or abandon us and would be with us through all time?
@@christeeleison9064 The bible was compiled by men who picked & chose among the manuscripts available to them (probably several hundred) & selected the ones that they thought should be included in the bible. & that agreement was hardly unanimous. Looking to the OT even the major religions can’t agree on how many books should be included. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, & the Eastern Orthodox have 51. Which one is correct? But it’s important to recognize that you don’t have the original texts. You don’t even have copies of the originals. What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of …. you get the idea. & every time a copy was made there was an opportunity for copyist errors to creep in - especially since in many cases the copyist didn’t speak the language they were copying. Worse yet it provided the copyist with an opportunity to amend the text to agree with their own personal orthodoxy. & then come to translation errors, there are plenty. The Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects & all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, NIV, RCV & the KJV. I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," & nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. In addition to the many different Christian sects & Bibles, i have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects & are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed. I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. On September 8 1957, the Jehovah's witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah's witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God?
Let me ask, if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and NT: II Samuel 8:4 (vs) II Samuel 8:9-10 II Kings 8:26 II Samuel 6:23 Genesis 6:3 John 5:37 John 5:31 I Chronicles 18:4 I Chronicles 18:9-10 II Chronicles 22:2 II Samuel 21:8 Genesis 9:29 John 14:9 John 8:14 Only 2 contradictions of the NT have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin & Atonement are reviewed. How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, & Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to 2 different authors, one unknown & the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; & yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God. And i looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary & learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. Human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible. Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature & human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The OT: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian's mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God's word. If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples & never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, & the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, & not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author's autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name: "And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, & followed Him (Jesus)." Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He's & the Him's of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account & not words inspired by God. It is worth noting, & well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present 4 "gospels" of the NT (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, & not by Jesus. Constantine's mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant & criminal who murdered his son, his wife & thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father."
@@truthhurts4928 🤦♂️ There were MULTIPLE languages spoken at the time of Jesus. Latin, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek. The area Jesus was born had tons of Greek speaking Jews. Jesus and His disciples and Apostles likely spoke both Aramaic and Greek. The entire Old Testament was actually already translated into GREEK by GREEK Jews long before Jesus was born. This is called the Septuagint/LXX. NT evidence clearly shows Jesus had read, quoted, and taught from the Hebrew Scriptures that were translated into the Greek. You should change your name to "Ignorance Hurts" 😁
A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. He knows the person of Jesus Christ very well. He does not doubt or confused because he knows the Gospel and the teachings of the Church well. He knows how to detect the Word in the midst of words. He is focus on Faith, Hope and Charity and on the Holy Cross.
quote--A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, ...unquote That is an oxymoron!! CHRISTIAN The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", Are you a FOLLOWER of the teachings of Cfrist?? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! ----FACTS" --The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11 --The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13 --The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41 ----Facts: Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday) Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday) Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday) Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday) Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday) Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday) John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, (Sunday) ---About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath" Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174. "The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893. "The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day? "Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day. "Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? "Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910. What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
quote---A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. unquote NO SUCH TERM, and a oxymoron----- Christian--A FOLLOWER of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!! So, quote the Bible that tells of Jesus worshipping on Sunday. Quote Jesus that says we should pray to Mary. Quote Jesus that says Mary went to/or is in heaven. Quote Jesus that says Mary can hear millions of prayers at once. Quote Jesus that says A mere man is the head of His church. ----Here’s the thing-- the Bible, at least the parts relevant to this discussion-- the Torah-- is written in Hebrew and in Hebrew, our words for the days of the week are incredibly prosaic and simple. Sunday is “Yom Rishon”, which literally means “1st day”. Monday is “Yom Sheini”, which literally means “second day”. What do you think “Yom Shlishi” means? Yes, “Third day” and yes, it’s Tuesday. Let’s skip ahead to “Yom Shishi”, the 6th day- Friday. Well now, what about the Seventh day? Well, we call that one “Shabbat”- the Sabbath. FACTS: About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath" Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174. ----"The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893. ---"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. ----"Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day? "Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day. "Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? "Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910. What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D. FACTS: Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday) Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday) Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday) Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday) Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday) Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday) John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover --Either the Holy Bible is a lie, or the one that told you Sunday is a holy day lied.
@@johnyang1420 quote---Jesus started Catholic church--unquote NOPE!!! THE NAME CATHOLIC is not EVER mentioned in the Bible!!! Every church started by Jesus was Christian!! Followers of the TEACHINGS of CHRIST!!!! Roman Catholic Church does not predate any Scriptures. It came in ad300s. It was made the official religion of Rome in ad380 by Theodosius. Scriptures was written by Jewish Christian Apostles and Jewish Prophets. Not Roman Catholics. Acts 9:31 says nothing of Roman Catholic Church. Stop misquoting. Acts 9:31 clearly says the Christian Church spread to Judea Samaria and Galilee regions of Israel; not Rome. So all your claims fall to the ground. Bible only approves traditions of Jesus and Apostles. 2 Thes 2:15. But Bible rejects all man made unbiblical traditions of Pharisees and Roman Church alike. Mat 15, 23. Roman Church doctrines came from its own man made traditions. Not from Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures. 95% of them are so. *** Jesus Christ didn't found the Catholic Church. it was the 325AD Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine 1 which was attended by bishops/popes of West and East Roman Empire May/Aug. 325AD ***Traditions Tradition holds that the first Gentile church was founded in Antioch, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys to Rome. ACTS-written between 70 Ad--90 AD--- CHRISTIANS--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!! At least 40 years AFTER Christ!!!!------ *****When was the first Christian church built? The earliest archeologically identified Christian church is a house church (domus ecclesiae), the Dura-Europos church, founded between 233 and 256. In the second half of the 3rd century AD, the first purpose-built halls for Christian worship (aula ecclesiae) began to be constructed. CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!! Built between 293 and 303, the building pre-dates the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, Israel, and the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, West Bank, both of which were constructed in the late 320s. The church is the first purpose-built Christian church discovered from the period before Christianity found favour with the Roman imperial governmen*****The oldest known purpose-built Christian church in the world is in Aqaba, Jordan. t. It even pre-dates the greatest of all the Roman anti-Christian persecutions, that of Diocletian in 303-313. The church, the ruins of which were excavated in 1998, is in the form of an east-west oriented basicila, with apse and aisles. It also had a narthex and chancel. Excavation has unearthed walls up to 4.5m 14ft 9in high. During its first phase the church would have held about 60 worshipers; it was later extended to hold about 100. The building appears to have been abandoned during the presecution of 303-311, then refurbished between 313 and 330. It was destroyed by an earthquake in 363. **CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC *** Built between 293 and 303, --CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!!!
@@MichaelTheophilus906 it came from Jesus in the Last supper. Your protestant services are pagan to the core with modern satanic music like rock and roll
During Calvin's time there were 12 total letters of Ignatius, and we now know that 5 were forgeries. So his skepticism towards the letters wasn't unfounded or just because of his doctrine.
@@lucduchien The problem is that if the Catholic Church could deviate and no longer have the authority given by Jesus, it also follows that the Gospels can be corrupted and hence there is no basis for being a Christian at all.
@@theclassicaldiscourse I don't see how that follows. God is free to preserve Scripture in a way He hasn't preserved oral tradition. If one falls, it isn't necessary that the other falls. They aren't connected in that way
@@adamheida8549 If the authority of the Church can fail, the authority that is given by God, then much more can the Scriptures fail because they were compiled using the authority of the Church. The early Church affirms many of the things that these days many Christians deny. St. John himself wrote that not all is written in the scriptures. If I were to rely on my interpretation of the Bible, it would result in chaos, which is evident everywhere in the West. The problem is that all the early christians were members of the Catholic Church. They affirm the Papacy (I think Joe Heschmeyer said that in the video), and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Also, on studying history, you realise that several councils were held within the early church. And, an interesting factor is that if you trace from whom you became Christian , all of them merge with the Catholic Church at some point.
@@adamheida8549 Adam: You are forgetting about the organicity (living of faith) of preserving Scripture: it is done through inspired PEOPLE, like the Apostles and their successors. You seem fixed in Sola-Scriptura, where the text is superior and separable from the community (church) of those who taught it, wrote it, and preserved it in its worship (which is where the written tradition flourishes). “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Acts 2:42 You appeal to a random theory of how God can bypass His community of faith, abandon them to error, and somehow in time preserve the written Word from error??? Bad theology and chronology. Who gets to interpret it “free from error” if the Apostles and their successors are in error? How do we even know which books belong in the New&Old Testament? Just listen to yourself and see the bad chronology: “God is free to preserve Scripture in a way He hasn’t preserve oral tradition.“ Question: Is God also free to preserve the Apostolic Church and its teaching, whether preached orally or in writing (Bible)? “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2Tes2:15 Jesus promised: “I will be always with you until the end of times” Matthew 19 Adam, re-consider your Biblical, historical, and rational basis, because Scripture is THE written expression of the living Apostolic of the Word of God. The church and its living faith and worship pre-existed the written texts; both cannot be divorced. Find out how the Bible was canonized.
An orthodox here. I enjoyed the video and was intrigued by the claim of your guest at the end. What may I read specifically that would compel me to think that the Bishop of Rome didn't merely have primacy, but supremacy? Joe Heschmeyer, the guest I presume, says that an early book of some saint presumably, has some five pages that point to supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I'd love to read those. Thank you. P.S. I can cite exact words and letters and links of another Bishop of Rome, namely Saint Gregory the Great who calls any attempt to establish a universal bishop as a precursor to the Antichrist, if anyone is interested. He did not mince words. Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
Yeah can you send me the quotes from St Gregory? Also, I think many Catholics don't really know about Orthodoxy and they just assume it is either Protestant or Catholic.
I think he said it was St.Ireneus who wrote about it. If you're interested I recommend recent interview with catholic and orthodox priests on the Gospel Simplicity UA-cam channel:) They talk about different perspectives and arguments about how Rome church was seen in the first ages:) The interview is very interesting, it's not a debate, not conclusive but very interesting arguments from both sides :)
@@alexanderh2345 @DANtheMANofSIPA Here is my article about it with direct links to the original letter as well as full context: eodeo.wordpress.com/2022/11/22/saint-gregory-the-greats-thoughts-on-a-universal-bishop/
I’ve been reading all the earliest writings. …. And they use the terms bishop and presbytery interchangeably to refer to the same office. Usually referring to a plurality.
@Pints with Aquinas I love the Roman Catholic Church, but I found my home at the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is mostly because I couldn’t deal with Pope Francis. There were also some theological issues I had and felt more comfortable with Orthodox Christianity. However, I just watched St. Augustine the movie today and he truly was a great Latin Church Father. In addition, if you’re wondering, I was raised in the Pentecostal movement and went to a Southern Baptist church for a while and got baptized in one. Honestly, my family kept moving to a different mega church or Baptist church every few years. Nonetheless, I know I’m home in the Greek Orthodox Church ( I converted in December 2020), and I pray to God we can reunite someday. God bless you! Finally, you should have more comfortable discussions with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Jesus wants us all to get along, even when we debate each other.
Why not just go to any of the Eastern Catholic Churches.. like Byzantine Catholic Church for one. They are orthodox and in communion with the Holy Father? Why leave Catholicism? That makes no sense
@elijahc.brooks3493 EO is schismatic. But, there is a way to reject Bergoglio, without rejecting the papacy. Sedevacantism. There are many sede parishes around, but you may have to drive a bit to get there. AMDG
I'm currently studying the early Church fathers and I have several questions. Given that there were established churches in Rome, Constantinople, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc., why would the authority rest with the bishop of Rome? Also, we all probably know people who were baptized into the Church but turned away early in life and never returned. In what sense could we call them "saved"?
A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him. The Holy Spirit is on him and enlightens him (Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan).
quote----A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him.... unquote NO true "christian" would ever wear a cross!!!!
Some comments are weird... that's why I would say this : A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. He knows the person of Jesus Christ very well. He does not doubt or confused because he knows the Gospel and the teachings of the Church well. He knows how to detect the Word in the midst of words. He is focus on Faith, Hope and Charity and on the Holy Cross.
IF Catholics focus on the word made flesh why follow the following manmade dogma. Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death. There is no such person in the word of God.
@@sammygomes7381 Sammy, You are a true Teacher and a great THEOLOGIAN. I can not answer to You. Please find a Catholic priest near to You and ask ALL your question to him. So, I can only say : god bless You and your familiy. Have a nice a day !
@@charliesims8482 the woman in Rev 12 is the Nation of Israel. Nothing in the following statement has anything to do with a biblical person, just a goddess and idol. Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
@@sammygomes7381why are you wasting your time. They are dead and delusional. No saint in the new covenant was praying to Mary and deceased people They are all cursed and will continue hailing Mary and PRAYING TO DEMONS rhey call SAINTS STOP sir. You are constantly doing what Jesus told us not to do Casting pearls to SWINE. STOP.
The simple group of Jesus apostles and disciples, most of whom were "unlettered & ordinary men" (Acts 4:13) were Jews who believed in ONE God. They theyen accept Jesus as "God's Son" ( Matt 16:16 worrds of Peter!) Acts 1-4 shows they were qorshiping the Sovereign Lord God who had raised his 'servant', His son from the dead" ( see Acts 3:26. 4:24). The 'Catholic church' formed doctrines COMPLETELY different to the earliest 'church'. There was no 'trinity'. no'immortal sou;' no 'succession of saints' e.t.c all FALSE!
The truth is that The early church is what you see now in the Eastern Orthodox churches. There was only one Christian church. Then came the great schism and Vatican 2. The western church (Rome) now has no resemblance to original Christianity.
Other than the ancient rituals of the Apostles which eventually became the Mass/Divine Liturgy each of these rituals tracing back to one of the Apostles, in the intention of the essence of the ritual and the general structure and purpose of of it, the Eucharistic offering to God, and the discipline for the people receiving it worthily, there's more evidence for the Catholic Church's legitimacy other than it's ancient origins. The episcopacy and Apostolic Succession was necessary in the view the Apostles, or else they wouldn't have chosen Matthias as the Apostolic Successor of Judas Iscariot, and would have merely continued their activities without concerning themselves over this, this isn't explicitly written in the Bible, but it's there. The adherence of the Catholic religion to Natural Law is what sets it apart from the Orthodox, as there is a consistent official practice in regards to matters of faith and morals with a philosophical foundation, at least in matters which are formally defined. While the many EO bishops vary on stances regarding contraception and divorce. Eventually one Church has to be the one of the churches has to be protected by the Holy Spirit and they can't both be right. There is a need for doctrinal clarity in matters of morals as that can determine the salvation of individuals, and such cannot be found in the EO churches. In regards to the supernatural, it is rather curious that all officially approved apparitions by the Catholic Church such as Fátima and Lourdes there is mention dogmas not approved by the Orthodox by what would otherwise be children uneducated in such theological matters, testimonies which stand up to scrutiny. And that there are sufficient miracles related to the places which promote this stories to give them legitimacy, as it would be expected that God would not perform miracles when they would be used to promote false theology. If the promise that the Holy Spirit would remain on the Church until the end of time and that "the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it" is false, then that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Bible as a whole, and we wouldn't be able to trust anything. As it is the opinion of most Saints both the Western Fathers and the Greek Fathers, the majority of Catholic adults are not living in accordance with their state in life, they speculated that the majority of them will be lost. And that the odds are worse for those not in communion with the Catholic Church, because of their errors on moral matters, less access to grace (Sacraments may be valid but not licit in schismatic factions, except in danger of death). If the majority were lost back then it is safe to assume it it worse now. With the scandals of the XX and XXI century clergy who have modernist views causing doctrinal confusion, and laxity and lack of virtue in the laity.
Papal infallibility, this is what separates Orthodoxy from Papism, also the Orthodox view on marriage is that you can have up to 3 divorces. Tell me, why the mixed bag with Catholics when it comes to gay marriage?
This is something of a parody. Claims of papal supremacy are based on v weak arguments & the diversions in doctrine since 1054 that have followed were all based on that fallacious authority. It involves circular thinking followed
@@Durnyful Look up how many of the Church Fathers that have been forged by Papists, these forgeries try to prove papal supremacy, among many other Catholic lies
What did the apostles teach. They never taught mass, never claimed they could turn bread into the body of Christ, never taught we had to eat Christ as they understood the Jewish metaphor of bread equating to the word of God and eating it was to read the word.
@@TriciaRP Man made? “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them” John 6:56 The Eucharist doesn’t take out the focus out of the Holy Spirit. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit abide in us. But in order for Jesus to abide in us we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood as he says. Have you eat Jesus?
@@TriciaRP John 6:53-55 - So Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink."
@@EdgardoSilva-od3td Bread is a Jewish metaphor for reading the word of God. And what did God say in the OT, and the disciples say in Acts about drinking blood?
Keep reading please. John 6:63 ESV [63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The Orthodox Church says there was only the Orthodox Church until the Catholic Church started pushing the pope as head over all other Bishops, and I believe other things lead to the schism, which again according to the O.C. the R.C. moved away from what the Church was, thus creating the Roman Catholic Church, while the Orthodox Church continued as the Church had been from the beginning. They have a pretty solid argument.
Hi and thx for replying. The history I’m familiar with is in Scripture starting with Isaiah 22:22. Later in Matthew 16:19, the Apostles would have been very clear in Jesus’ meaning. As am I.
Look at the doctrines, dogmas and beliefs of modern Catholicism. We can see the time line of their changing theology. So how can we say that the Catholic church is the same as the early church?
I am Catholic too, just not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism started under emperor Constantine by Eusebius. It was Eusebius that did the rewriting of history to centralize power around Rome.
@@HillbillyBlack It is nice to see someone like you, who also studies hard. To my understanding, they (Jews) relied heavily on oral traditions (Paul to my understanding in 2 Thessalonians 2, was referring to the Jewish traditions, not RCC traditions we have today). I came to the same conclusion as Ed Stevens, all of the New Testament canon was finished by AD66. Knowledge ceased that year (revelation from God). This was the same year the Roman Jewish war started.
@@soteriology400 with all due respect. How could Constantine start a church when he wasn’t even the pope, bishop or priest let alone a deacon? That makes no sense
Not really. There are still many mormons that practice it just like Joseph Smith. Polygamy and all. The problem with this comparison is mormonism allows for their "prophets" to receive divine revelation everyday, even if it goes against scripture. The Catholic Church can't do that. Its bound by scripture and it never changes dogma if its spoken through just one person. If God wants us to adapt, he'll let us know through the magisterium and it won't contradict scripture
@@MasterKeyMagic : Really : The Greek literally says "to be of one woman." It is translated "husband of one wife " in virtually all bibles on Biblehub. The only alternate renderings I could find said "faithful to your wife.". Peter was married and history tells us so were many other 'Bishops' in the early Church..
This is no doubt a short clip from a much longer discussion.. However, I thought the early Church was comprised of Jewish Christians. Well, at least it was according to the book of Acts. There were remnants of Jewish Christian groups even in later cebturies. By this tine, gnostic Christian grous had also appeared. All these groups traced their origin back to an Apostle.
What about Jewish ethnicity refutes their ability to believe Catholic doctrines on baptism, communion, bishops, etc? Not sure what point you're making...
@@DavidLarson100 : The fact that such diverse groups existed for so long suggests that these early Christian communities did not believe in 'Catholic doctrine' . Doctrines that emerged later and were eventually triumphant does not mean they were the beliefs of the very first Christian groups.
@@JosephSmith-ph4xr Read the writings of the very early first Christians, stuff like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireaneus. Focus on those who were connected with Apostles not random people who mixed various belief systems, like Gnostic Christians.
@@DavidLarson100 : I have their writings in my library. Where is the teaching that God is one in essence.substance but three in person ? It is clear that is we read Clement and the writings just after the turn of the century, such ideas had no been fully formulated or expressed and so were not a requirement of the very first Christians.
I Peter 3:21, while comparing baptism to the saving of Noah's family, it also says that it doesn't remove the filth of the flesh but is the answer of good conscience. If it doesn't remove our filth, how then does it save us? We cannot be unclean and enter the presence of God. We need redemption, but it doesn't say that. It says it brings good conscience toward the Lord. Therefore, we have a contradiction in meaning here. So, what is Peter really saying? I think the conscience part is easy, pointing to the Holy Spirit descending upon us and living in us, as promised by Christ when we are born again. What are we saved from then? I think it's from ourselves. The entirety of I Peter 3 is about conduct and conscience is first mentioned in verse 16 and redressed in verse 21. So, if we seek continuity of this passage, Peter is not talking about salvation or being saved from sin, but that of our own minds. We that are without the Holy Spirit are not of good conscience and without that, we would suffer at the result of our own understanding. To believe that I Peter is speaking of salvation is to ignore the topic continuity along with the words that follow in parenthesis (for clarification), which speak of receiving good conscience, not the removal of our filthy (sinful) flesh. Also, going back to the days of the early church, there weren't Bibles around for people to study. They had to hear and remember, and churches messed things up by forgetting some of the entirety of the Apostolic instruction, thus the copying of letters and preserving them for future study and reference for the scholars. If everything was so cut and dry on being acquainted with the Apostles, why then was there a departure from the original church of Antioch in 70 A.D.? Paul is claimed in this video to have died around 100 A.D. and offers up corrections to the churches he wrote letters to.
The Vaudois claimed their gospel from Paul during his ministry. They got their gospel from an apostle as well, and somehow it wasn't the same as the Catholics.
“Baptism now saves you…” Yes, because salvation is more than some mental ascent; of “I believe Jesus died for me.” It is a life change by which you have died, resurrected, and are continually dying and resurrecting unto a newness of life. But baptism is the entrance into this new life through the birthing waters of baptism.
The thief on the cross had no baptism. But he went to paradise. We need to be baptised into the body of Christ when we are born again ...that baptism is of the spirit. So a person any person at crisis of death can say Jesus I believe in you. Forgive me of my sins. And he will be baptised by the holy spirit. His salvation is secured. And if he can get out to that crisis and live ..he must join a church and get water baptised. Paul says in rom 6...that water baptism is a clear indicator that you have died to the old live and arise in the new life in Christ. The rc church taught you guys wrong... When Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of water and the spirit... Nico said how can I go back into my mum's womb..... Nico was not confused as to what Jesus was referring.... Jesus meant you must be born of a womb with water bag. Ie a natural birth. Then Jesus also said so after you are born of a natural birth you must now be born of the spirit. Jesus was talking about two births. One is done by mum and dad, the other is done by the spirit of god. The church just looks at the whole thing and says to you...uhhh this water means we must baptised you to go to heaven ...get it..how they gv so much power to themselves....so if they don't baptize you ..how are you going to go to heaven?! Look at Cornelius..... Peter spoke to the family ..they were believing from the minute peter started speaking...and the holy spirit fell on the whole family and they spoke in tongues......so the family believed in Jesus and were spirit baptised on the spot. They were already saved according to God, if and earthquake happened and they died they were all saved already. Now peter looking at what happened said...if they already received the holy spirit what is stopping me of baptising them with water...... Water baptism is very important . But it's not why the church says. Water baptism cannot save any one. It's faith in Jesus that saves you.
I agree with both "baptism now saves you" and "faith is more than mental ascent", which is why I wonder why Romans like to bring up James to "deafeat" sola fide. The faith described in James 2 is obviously mere mental ascent, which is why his statement has to be looked at in light of Paul, who clearly says sola fide.
Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13). Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ. An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.' "So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.” Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
@@wicomms : "The thief on the cross had no baptism... ? But how do you know that? He may have been one of the multitude that had been baptized in the Jordan. But, even if he had no Sacramental Baptism, his confession, repentance, sorrow and appeal for God's mercy constitutes a Spiritual Baptism.
@@alhilford2345 how I know that? He first reviled Jesus?! ....if he did go for John's baptism he would not have cursed Jesus first. You must think abt the big picture. That story is there for anyone who thinks that we need a person or church to stand as mediator between us and God. The example shown is No. God can save anyone any time . I read that ppl came to the church and asked that their loved one died with no baptism?! So they made a rule that one can get baptised on behalf of their loved one...why did they do something so ridiculous. Because church put it out there that one needs baptism inorder to be saved, which is not true.
quote----I believe that the first church is the Ancient Antiochene Church of God where we were first called "Christian".... unqiote What is a "Christian"?? CHRISTIAN The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", FOLLOWERS of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!! ******Written 2000 years ago! NOT my interpretation!!! >>> A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. --And NO CATHOLIC follows Christ and HIS Teachings!! I suggest you ask yourself: Is this what Christ taught??? ----
They don't care about inspired texts, or even much about scripture. They care about traditions. Then they care about scripture when they need to backdate their traditions and shoehorn them into scripture.
If the early church , was 100% Catholic, then how come the Catholic Jesus had a mother? And how come the Catholic Mary only had Jesus,? On the other hand the Biblical Mary had at least 6 children after Jesus. Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55-56... "And to the disciple, Here is your Mother". John 19:27.🙄
Except there was no mention of a Pope anywhere in the writings of the early Fathers prior to the schism. The Didache written around the 2nd century was believed to be one of the first “instruction manuals” for the church. Pretty odd there is no mention of an infallible bishop we are supposed to rely on. Nor is there in the Bible, since Jesus even made reference to the infallibility of St. Peter. Pretty important I would think. The Church was catholic (little c, meaning United or universal) but they were not Roman Catholic.
The pope was called the bishop of Rome. Plus how does your comments validate your 40,000 man-made protestant cults each preaching different gospels of salvation that are 500 year old MAX
St. Ignatius of Antioch called the true Church "Katholikos" in the early 100's to distinguish it from heretical groups who were already going off with their own teachings and yet still calling themselves "Christian." So the true Church needed a proper name of its own. If they were all Christian, and united in all of their teachings, there would have been no need to come up with another title. There was only ONE that was meant to spread around the world. The Bible in its current form wasn't even determined until the 300's, and it was the councils of the Catholic Church that closed the canon. Even the J3ws didn't close their own canon until about 100 years after Christ's death. "Roman" (actually Latin is the correct title) is only one of over 20 rites that are all in communion with each other and the pope. The pope just needs a single seat where he is expected to be most of the time, just as the president of the USA has his seat in DC yet he is just as much the president of the rest of the country.
@julieelizabeth4856 St. Cyprian of Carthage: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power...”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4) The myth that the United States was established as a “democracy” granting its citizens “equal” rights, only to see in recent years for the reiteration of this myth to be disowned as not only inaccurate, but racist/patriarchal/bigoted. Nevertheless, this national myth is a popular example of how something that would have made no sense in 1776 or 1789 two centuries later arose to become a dominant myth that took considerable effort to undo. It is We the People of these United States. The president is "supposed" to enact the will of the people. Not the other way around. All that the word kathilkos means is universal. As in the Nicene Creed. "We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church." The Creed is not just about Rome.
If you are reading directly from Scripture and getting all your doctrines from there, so where did you find purgatory and the assumption of Mary? Indulgences?
The church as well as its doctrine existed before the Bible. How do you think people followed Jesus or learned about the faith. THE CHURCH, because the church came first. The gates of hell will not prevail against his church.
@@HillbillyBlack Answer: The holy tradition and the magisterium. If you believe that the holy spirit guided the authors of the bible, why can't you believe that the holy spirit guides the men leading the Catholic church by apostolic succession?
@@timothyp.1392 it's weird when Catholic vs Orthodox boils down to "the pope". Like, the existence of the Pope is so non-central it can't possibly be the make or break point. Like, can you have a pope? Sure. Should you? Maybe. Is it MANDATORY THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE POPE IS IMPORTANT? No. The distinction between Orthodox and Catholic simply didn't exist for hundreds of years. Trying to claim it is one or the other is nonsensical. I think the Catholics and Orthodox must agree on the early church, or we've devolved into retroactive sectarianism. That kind of IS protestantism at it's core.
Ignatius taught that local congregations should choose their bishops and that is similar to the Apostles teaching that local congregations should choose their own elders and deacons. But, Ignatius did not say they should have some other bishop lay hands to pass down some apostolic succession.
Great short video. Joe distills things down in an effective way what the church fathers taught. Matt’s enthusiasm and general attitude is quite catchy! 🤠
The term "Roman Catholic " is a misnomer. The term "Roman " was applied to the Church by Henry VIII to distinguish between the Church headed by him and the Church headed by the Pope. The official name of the Church is Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Knowing Church history is essential to knowing Christianity! God bless
These would be appealing arguments if there had been no changes to the church in the last 1500 years. But lots of fluff has crept in. Having grown up protestant I would say, most protestants object not to church hierarchy per se but to elevation of saints, pope, Mary and a focus on idols and angels-ology generally as opposed to Jesus. If the catholic church was always orthodox and Jesus-focused (like the Jesuits?) there would be fewer objections to its authority from protestants. Arguably the catholic church ceased to be literally catholic in the first schism (filioque etc), when rather than being universal for all the churches i.e. catholic implies universal and in agreement with the at the time other orthodox churches, it demanded obedience and fealty to Rome. Technically then, it is not catholic church but the Church of Rome. One could make the argument that Peter's mantle has been passed on to the remaining catholic i.e. universal church of orthodoxy at that point. Hard to say and I am no biased either way as far as I can tell. Regardless, given the fractional non-orthodox tendancies of protestant churches, and the potential for them to go wildly off tangent, esp re feminine worship styles, many Christians myself included would conceivably subject ourselves to (and actively support) Rome for the sake of Christ's words to Peter were it to become (and while it were to remain) more obviously orthodox. No problems with filioque here either. Just the way it was done, i.e. popery. I hope the church can one day reign in the popes power generally and go more orthodox...maybe even unite. That would be a valuable message to the world and one which protestants could not ignore.
I gotta dissagree with you about how elevating the saints, Mary, and so on is detracting from our focus on Jesus. A great example is how to "pray the rosary." It sounds like we pray to Mary, and that's all there is to it. But no, every time we say the "Hail Mary" prayer ten times, we are thinking or meditating on the Life of Christ. EVERYTHING point back to Him. A great question to ask ourselves is this. Why did God do ANY of this? The virgin birth, heaven and Hell, his pain and suffering on the cross, angels, why anything at all? Opposed to just picking out His sheep from the start because he knows all things. I don't know the answer, but He, in his perfect wisdom, chose to unfold everything the way it did. So, I want to embrace everything good because it could only lead back to Him.
@@Veritas231 Every hail Mary is a prayer to a goddess and idol as there was no woman in the bible that was immaculate, God doesn't have a mother and the dead cannot hear us, and yes, she is dead in the flesh.
@sammygomes7381 You're wrong on all of these things. You've been taught to hate the Catholic church. Does your church have apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles? Nope. Christ has been gone for almost 2000 years now. How long has your church denomination been around?? Not even a 1,000 years. The Catholic church has the authority to teach. And has been used mightily by Christ for nearly 2,000 years now
This is a lie. The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament. The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism? The answer is simple - the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament. Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church’s teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.
I want to ask in a gentle and respectful way, does the Roman church as it is today resemble the early church in a correct and meaningful way? I know that this an unanswerable in the comment section, can anyone recommend a book/s that cover this topic?
Fact is that secondary sources are seriously prone to selective quotes from selective early church writers that fit their own agendas. It would require double-checking the primary sources in context to get a true picture .
I’ve got to be honest, the early church was Christ himself and his disciples and yes He can relate to a mixture of categories. He was Jewish and He was also a Protestant of that religion. He protested the church on so many occasions to bring the point home that it was about the spirit of God more than about tradition. If we ever want to know where Jesus is on all of this, it is there ~ God centred beyond any tradition. It is about love and healing but it is always God first above any idolatry to even earthly tradition or times. So for example if the Lenten process becomes an idol over what the Holy Spirit speaks to us uniquely, then we are in grace (should say grave however left auto spell word ‘grace’ in as very important) danger already. I hope this gives you who Jesus was and is. He would not really be bound in such a way as perhaps you suggest. He is beyond earthly religion. Hope this helps.
"He was not bound by earthly religion" Yet was subject to his earthly parents (who followed Jewish law to the letter) and practiced Jewish laws himself perfectly until his death... how does your argument stand up to him being circumcised? Or the purification in the temple where Simeon meets him? Or the keeping of the Sabbath. Or a billion other examples in the Bible? "He protested the Church on so many occasions." No. He didn't not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He fulfilled the Jewish law better than the pharasees and saducees. They were amazed at his grasp of Jewish law at 12 years old. "It was about the spirit of God more than about tradition." No. It was about having works and cleanness more than compassion. Which is a trap anyone can fall into. But having tradition is not in and of itself an evil. Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping statues and pictures, then on Christmas they pull out...guess what...statues and pictures and little nativity scenes. To teach their children about Christ's birth and as a reminder to themselves. Which is literally what Catholics use them for as well... Protestants don't like repetitive prayers, yet everyone knows their version of the Our Father. If God is the same yesterday, today and, tomorrow then the God of the old Testament who specified how He wanted His temple built down to most specific measurements, then struck down 2 men who did the incense wrong, then explain to me why people think they can interpret what God wants in His Own House now? I'll give you a clue, it's called Modernism.
That is totally inaccurate. Jesus was not a protestant of the Jewish faith. He said it himself that he was a fulfillment of the Jewish religion. You mistake Him being against the Pharisees as being against the religion. That is not true.
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division. Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority. Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all. Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation. As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like. And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody. I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences. And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
That´s exactly the problem with the New Testament. First, who said we need another bible, then who decided what books go into that bible and third, who authorised what was allowed to say in that bible and what wasn't. Since the church became a Roman church things changed dramatically for the Christians including persecuting everyone who wasn't church politically correct.
@@maryloudascoli I had a quick look into it. Unfortunately in the video he only speaks about his book. Is there anywhere we can hear more about it. I’m a bit confused about him where exactly he stands because other videos of his I watched seems to indicate that although he is believer in the Catholic Church he rejects the current papacy. But was the papacy ever any force for good?
We trust it because it's so close so that we know error hasn't crept in, yet there was already erring in the churches at Corinth and Galatia. Okay. This reasoning is a lot of circular argumentation. Dr Thomas Smyth wrote a book about this in the 1800s. Highly suggested. Also, just read the Book of Concord, as well as the Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz already.
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." - Pope Saint Gregory the Great - defender of Orthodoxy (or as he is known in the Orthodox Church, Saint Gregory the Dialogist; Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
Hmm. The title to this video is either misleading or completely untrue. The early church did not insist on unleavened bread, did not forbid priests from marrying, did not declare the Pope as the leader of the entire church, did not include the filioque in the Creed - just to name a few. It is in fact the Catholic Church that split off from The Original Church to follow their own path.
What is wrong with people who volunteer themselves to be priests staying celibate and what is wrong with having one person leading the church. Do you know any practices the early church did that the church still does today?
It is always discouraging to me, when I see Romans do it. I don´t have many Romans around in my area to talk to, so it´s always sad when I see the majority of them present this caricature online. We should come together in the spirit of truth! As Lutherans we have adressed this so often, that I don´t know what to do.
As far as we know as an orthodox faithful all ecumenical councils were held in the East not the West. Christianity begins in the East not in the West. Rome is alone in the West. Meanwhile, the Christian Orthodox in the East are still one and in communion
Yes, because in the early church the Bishop's were the husband of one wife, there were no priests, no infant baptism, no rosary beads, no pope, no cardinals, no indulgences, no veneration of Mary, saints, or angels, no latin mass, and the early church had an entirely different eschatology that was premillennial and literal. Oh yeah, the allegorists were not tolerated either.
The early church was Catholic (within the literal meaning of the word), but not Roman Catholic. In Ezekiel, "In the sprinkling of water upon you." Which water? Just natural water, or was it the living water from the Spirit of God? "Baptism now saves you." Please, read the ENTIRE passage in 1Peter 3:21. Is the baptism that God requires solely a ceremonial baptism of natural water, which can only remove dirt from the flesh; or is it what God is targeting, concerning the living water given by the baptism of the Holy Spirit? All of this is an example of how teachings get derailed from what God is intending to convey. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, which can easily become a particular church's doctrine.
The Church is Catholic. ROMAN Catholic is signifying the WESTERN Church or the Latin Rite. The term "Roman Church", when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome. Roman Catholics may be simply defined as Christians in communion with the pope. The Catholic Church is comprised of East and West. There's 24 rites in the Catholic Church in union with the Pope.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG Any church that has its foundation on the apostles and prophets, having Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone, and is Holy Spirit-filled, is His earthly church. All those who are born again, born from above, and sealed with the Holy Spirit are His true bride that we read about in 2 Peter 2:9. This is God's universal church, as He sees it from His eyes.
@@dannisivoccia2712 Yes, the Catholic church was founded on the apostles, by the apostles, and has Christ as king over all. The Catholic church has apostolic succession, whereas protestant denominations do not.
@@dannisivoccia2712 If you think that is Pastor Bob from 35th Gateway Evangelical Bible Church of Christ is an anyway on the same level as the valid succession of the papacy and the magisterium of the Church you're grossly mistaken dude. There is numerous ecclesiastical documents that empirically show theologically and historically that the Church from its very Foundation was a hierarchy with a governing magisterium that had not only valid succession from the apostles handed down but seven sacraments. Jesus did not give us a Bible, he gave us a Church with an actual papacy and ordained priesthood to bind and loose on top of a missionary priesthood.. But if you want to show me how the early Christians preached five Solas please go ahead and show all of us.
The official name of Christ's Bride is "The Church". The term "Roman" was a pejorative name given to the Catholic Church. The official name is, and always has been "The Church". The Church had kept the descriptive word "Roman" to differentiate itself from other churches that use "catholic" (some protestant denominations use "catholic" as well). Roman Catholic describes the Latin Rite, aka, the Western Rite. Different from the Eastern Rite Catholic church, aka Oriental Catholic church, which are in full communion with the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church
Joe is confused at the end. The second century text that says all must agree with the Roman church is from Irenaeus of Lyons not Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius does say some stuff useful for discussion on Rome. He says that Rome presides in love (or over the love feast I’ve heard). He also says that Smyrna now has Jesus Christ and Rome’s love for their bishop as they had no bishop.
From my understanding orthodoxy is a schism, not a heresy in the way that protestantism is. This video is about protestant objections to catholicism. Orthodox still have the sacraments and priests but they are not in full communion with Rome and the pope. So they are closer to us catholics than the protestants who don't have a priesthood and only have baptism as a sacrament. For protestants it's mostly based on the Bible and their own personal interpretation of the Bible rather than on the church fathers and what they had to say concerning the Bible and biblical interpretation. To talk about orthodoxy would be for another video as the catholic-protestant rift is an altogether different topic than the catholic-orthodox schism. I actually don't know as much about the orthodox but my understanding is that the schism happened more for political reasons while for protestants they were having more theological objections to the faith, wanting scripture alone, faith alone, etc.
What @Marie Munzar said, and also that the Orthodox church still has apostolic succession - it's a schism not a doctrinal revolution. Orthodoxy has the sacraments, and even most of the same theological points (from my reading and understanding of the Orthodox church). The main differences are in the church structure - head Bishop in Rome vs multiple Patriarchs - and their position on the Filioque, being three controversial words in the Catholic version of the Apostles Creed. Whilst the Orthodox church is not in communion with the Roman church, it still maintains a solid tradition. Aside from a few things, the churches are very similar. It is like the speaker in the video said: [on reading Ignatius of Antioch] - the Orthodox Christians would agree with all of his writings, apart from the couple of pages talking about the Bishop of Rome. We are mostly the same, but many Catholic and Orthodox dogmatics will assert that the other church is abject heresy, which I can't find to be the case.
@@niconiconiick6979 The problem is that they denied Peter in their apostolic succession, for them Peter was just an apostle how others and a bishop like others, also of Antioch and other places, not the specifically one where Christ build his Church. And think about that Jesus calls Simon, Peter the rock, at Cause of his future mission to build the Church...
I really wish sometimes you guys wouldn't throw all protestants into the same camp on certain issues. A great deal of protestants truly believe that Christ is there at the Eucharist, or that baptism is essential for salvation.
You are right, of course, because there are so many denominations of Protestantism and they all have varying beliefs. As far as I know, many believe that Christ is only present in a Spiritual sense, whereas Catholics know that the priest's words of consecration effect a transubstantiation, whereby the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. The different denominations appear to hold different interpretations of Baptism.
@@alhilford2345The Eucharistic Wafer is still the Eucharistic Wafer but the SUBSTANCE. CHANGES, it becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ✝️ in the Holy Eucharist, and that is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
As much as I love your show Matt and appreciate the work you're doing, It's not really true that the Early Church was Catholic in the sense implied in the video. The Church has always been Catholic (and it still is) but it wasn't its first important characteristic. It was first of all Apostolic and the early fathers made a distinction between Orthodox teachings and heretical teachings. The Orthodox Church is the first, catholic and apostolic Church. Peace! ❤
That's seems right to me: to say the early church was catholic may be true, but to say it's the same as the Catholic church today may not necessarily follow.
As an example of of early theology being different than later theology is the eucharist. It started out as a sacrifice of Thanksgiving then turned into a sacrifice of Christ's body. Protestants point out from Hebrews that Christ was sacrificed once for all time. Rather than allowing this view the catholic church anathematized it in the council of Trent.
True the church was Catholic and Orthodox in its teachings. Unfortunately the Roman legalism and late developments of dogma has made it the workings of man and has fallen into the same mistakes of the pharisees. Example: indulgences and.papel infallibility when it comes to dogma. How can one pope say one thing and the heretic Francis says another.
"infallibility when it comes to dogma. How can one pope say one thing and the heretic Francis says another." You forgot to mention Ex cathedra, which counters this phrase... the last ex cathedra, which states the dogma, was said over 70 years ago. So that explains why Francis is contradicting Popes before him. Same way, how a doctor give a wrong disgnosis, while a well studied doctor says the correct one? The medicine is a lie? no. Now i dont understand what by "pharisee" you meant, for example, for indulgences. The first thousand years priests confessed and gifted penitences to the confessed ones. Any applied penitence, as simplier it would be, give indulgences. Garanteeded by free or just consequence of the act, if you want to understand that way. A prayer alone give indulgence. A obedience during the temptation is an indulgence... But surprise, surprise... centuries later, some bad-intentioned bishops made them as "sold places in heaven"... thats why traditionals put laws to forbbiden the practice of selling heaven.
@@sammygomes7381the original Greek for Acts 9:31 and the early church fathers who referred to the church as Catholic in their writings would beg to differ.
@@art3misxp784 Acts 9:31 does not refer to a Catholic church nor could it as it was still hundreds of years away. Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
In the book of Revelation Jesus adresses 7 churches that were already established by the apostles. This was hundreds of years before the establishment of the Catholic Church.
In Acts 2: 42-47 They (Christians) devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, and to the fellowship , to the BREAKING OF THE BREAD and to PRAYER= this is the Holy Eucharist done by the first Christians which meant they were Catholics.
@@tomrudolsen6235that’s all they do ADD and make assumptions. They have no Holy Ghost and completely misinterprete the word and constantly brag about compiling the Bible and don’t understand one scripture
Exactly. The docs from the first 200 yrs convinced me my Protestantism was on shaky ground. My vol. 1 of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers is underlined like crazy.
I read in a comment this: "The Bible does not say that Mary is Mother of God because God is Eternal, he is creator" - So, can someone tell me how JESUS CHRIST arrived in our world in order to save us ? How did he take BODY? How could he DIE ON the CROSS and thus SAVE US? Please can someone help me??
Protestants give themselves permission and authority to interpret scripture to their views and opinions and condemn others for not agreeing with their views and opinions
quote----Protestants give themselves permission and authority to interpret scripture to their views and opinions and condemn others for not agreeing with their views and opinions... unquote So, when I quote the BIBLE, is that MY interpretation????? ----Is this my interpretation? Exodus 20:3-17 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 3 you shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments.>>> Is this my interpretation???? Exodus 20:8-11 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. >>>>>Was that MY interpretation?? DIRECT quotes FROM the Bible!! AND a Catholic at that!!!!! An |nterpretation is when someone tries to explain it more than the Bible does!!!
@@martinmartin1363 ---quote---And you prove my point you give yourself permission and authority to preach to me.. unquote That means to me that you will NOT even listen to anyone that talks about the Bible. I reply to comments on the videos!!! By that fact, makes it okay to reply!!! If you DO NOT want replies--DO NOT comment to the video--or to me!!! IT IS AN OPEN FORUM!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I heard the use of the word Orthodox to describe the churches of the East was first used at the schism in 1054. I do know title Catholic Church was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD in his letter the church in Smyrna. Thanks.
I always thought that the church began at Pentecost. If that is the case ,then the church would have been Pentecostal, as every one in that upper room were baptized. In the Holy Spirit. That’s what a Pentecostal is. The church was born of the Holy Spirit, endured with the power to be witnesses for the Gospel. Being Pentecostal is more than a denomination. It literally means being baptized ,emerged in the Spirit of God. Anyone having been baptized in the Holy Spirit knows inside what I’m talking about. You can be any denomination and be baptized in the Holy Ghost and you know it! Not just a ceremony.
LOL - I see no one is touching this comment with a 10ft pole! I have an uncle that's Pentacostal and a close personal friend who is too. They are "gifted" in ways undemonstrated across other denominations, that I can attest. There is something to it, IMHO. My friend, who grew up in the same denomination as me, "sees" the Holy Spirit in me, and I have been the recipient of physically evident miracles (impossible weather alterations). She would like me to become Pentacostal, but I have discovered hesitation in that too, mostly because I don't fit their description of "being filled with the Holy Spirit," nor do I care for the absence of interpreters as recommended in the book of Acts and the elevation of spiritual gifts listed in Galatians. My friend and I have a unique acceptance of each other and most of the time we are spot on/aligned in our scriptural understanding. Therefore, I think the Bible still transcends truth beyond specific organizations and God's work is being completed in ways we are not always ready/willing to accept due to organizational history and policy. I guess "doctrine" would be the proper term here. I've never seen miracles channel through anyone that has not been full body emersed in baptism AFTER repentance/salvation. Therefore, the churches can argue all they want about who is the first church, the true church, the "right" church, and so on... I have seen the hand of God at work in ways proportional to the "impossible" ways they've been performed throughout the Bible, and the work God has done through me, or will do through me, is simply here for all to hear as I bear witness for Him. God is personal, not just a church, meaning that the church a person chooses should not be seen as a template for self-righteous argument or spiritual reproof. "The Church" is all those who make up the Bride of Christ, not a building or specific denomination. All churches... managed by the hands of humans... are flawed. The church, like us, will not be perfected until we are caught up in Christ.
@@kennethgoin628 I Hi Ken ; Just an historical fact. My thought and hope was not to prove anything ,but that the Christian church today use those same gifts in every church,every denomination .That Jesus be glorified!
The original Church is 100% Catholic and Apostolic. Just as it says in the Nicene Creed. But CERTAINLY NOT the Catholic Church that we see today. Because due to the Great Schism, when Rome and the pontiff insisted on their superiority, they left the Original Church. An act which alone is Overly Prideful (the Greatest Sin). And the West's separation from the Original Church was exposed for evil by it's adoption of pedophilia, homosexuality and the all too common acceptance of worldly values that run rapidly throughout the top of it's hierarchy. So for those who don't know, the Orthodox Church is the Original Church. Took a long time for me to uncover this, but by the Grace of GOD I now know the Truth. This is why the Eastern Churches are still producing Great Modern-Day Saints. Everyone who wishes to represent the life of Christ should study the lives of the Fathers and Elders on Mount Athos in Greece, Valaam Monasteries in Russia and the many Holy Saints throughout the Eastern European Churches and Monasteries. They teach and Introduce us to True Piety and Spiritual living that absolutely inspires great faith. May GOD Bless You All!
Every church has people in its ranks that are ungodly. For example, your beloved Orthodox Church has bishops that support Russia’s brutality in Ukraine. The difference is that leaders of the Catholic Church can denounce and excommunicate those priests and bishops who sexually abuse others and seek worldly desires, whereas no such structure exists in the Orthodox Church.
@@feeeshmeister4311 every man who lives not by the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Orthodox, Jew, Catholic and atheist alike, is deemed Unrighteous in the Eyes of GOD. And we will ALL be judged for our unrepentant sins, regardless of who we pledge allegiance to. But this does not change the fact that the Catholic Church is not the Original Bride of Christ.
@@feeeshmeister4311 the basic proof is the existence of the five patriarchs charged with leading the Original Church of Jesus Christ before the Great Schism. And I will remind you that as it was during the ecumenical councils, starting with the first in Nicaea charged by Emperor Constantine, none of these church representatives had individual authority over the others, but represented their respective regions throughout the world. The five locations were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that time there was no Pope, therefore there was no church based on Catholicism. You also have Modern-Day Saints throughout the Orthodox Church, like St Piaosis, St Porphyrios and St Joseph the Hesycast, whose lives are proof of the lineage of the Original Church. There's videos about the life of each on UA-cam that I recommend you watch My Brother. It's a level of devotion to Christ that every person who desires to be Christian should see and know about. They're examples of the power of GOD that one can possess when we're truly devoted to our faith. But due to the fact that both you and I are simple layman, I suggest you watch this for a more comprehensive explanation. It's not very long. ua-cam.com/video/OinVI39Ky4M/v-deo.html May GOD Bless You FeeeshMeister
@@earlyates2350 : Surely you know that it was the "Orthodox" people who broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! That is a historical fact.
The original Church is 100% Catholic and Apostolic. Just as it says in the Nicene Creed. But CERTAINLY NOT the Catholic Church that we see today. Because due to the Great Schism, when Rome and the pontiff insisted on their superiority, they left the Original Church. An act which alone is Overly Prideful (the Greatest Sin). And the West's separation from the Original Church was exposed for evil by it's adoption of pedophilia, homosexuality and the all too common acceptance of worldly values that run rapidly throughout the top of it's hierarchy. So for those who don't know, the Orthodox Church is the Original Church. Took a long time for me to uncover this, but by the Grace of GOD I now know the Truth. This is why the Eastern Churches are still producing Great Modern-Day Saints. Everyone who wishes to represent the life of Christ should study the lives of the Fathers and Elders on Mount Athos in Greece, Valaam Monasteries in Russia and the many Holy Saints throughout the Eastern European Churches and Monasteries. They teach and Introduce us to True Piety and Spiritual living that absolutely inspires great faith. May GOD Bless You All!
Flat out, Protestantism is a heresy where they create their own version of Jesus and his Church. Some may go as far as to say it is idolatry of creating their own version of God that fits their thinking instead of it being the other way around.
actually no. Don't be so in a hurry to call anything apart from RC is a heresy. You have to understand this errors can come and have come into churches and some have been eradicated and some have stayed inside the church. Now you can not say Roman Catholic Church were all pure and no errors had come in. Now Luther protested against those errors.
@@imunzni7069 RC contains the fullness of the truth. That, however, does not mean it is without fault, for no human being is faultless. So there are many faults in the RCC on a human level. However, the distinction between human errors and divine truth is an important one. Heresy is defined (and I paraphrase here a lot) as one has intentionally separated itself from the truth. It is not a status applied easily. One is given many chances to come back to the faith and re-confirm the truth of the Church. They have to be made aware of their fault, given chances, etc... From what I understand, this is a fairly extensive process. When they still reject this after all that time and effort by the Church to bring them into the folds, they are declared as heretics. So no, I don't say it lightly. There are many Protestants who I don't think are heretics because of the simple fact many have been lied to about the RCC and have gross misconceptions. Yes, there were errors in the Church Luther protested against. But it is naive to believe his protesting was purely on theological issues. Either way, if you see a problem in the Church, you work to resolve it from INSIDE the Church. Luther's fault was separating himself from it. That gave birth to now over 40,000 Protestant denominations where everyone disagrees and ends up founding their own churches.
Funny how you claim this, yet the Catholic church is a proven departure from the church of Antioch in 70 A.D. Per this historical departure, who then is creating their own "Jesus?"
@@tomcha75 Here is an example of the departure of the word of God as the following statement does not have one biblical truth in it. Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
At this point in time, with all the scriptural, historical and archaeological sources and evidence we have to verify what the Early Church (the Catholic Church, the Church: Matthew 16:18) believed I don't know what still holds protestant from Catholicism except pride or being of bad faith (no pun intended). I mean even among those who admitted or recognized it there're still plenty that stubbornly stay in their denial. Then there are also those who know better than the Apostles or the Church Fathers themselves... those are doomed to eternal wandering. Pray for all these people, they need it the most because they clearly aren't in a state of Invincible Ignorance.
Catholism always TRYING TO OWN SALVATION and control WHO get the word of God. IT won't work. Catholism have a FALSE ACCURSED DOCTRINE and another GOSPEL altogether
Protestants came out of apostate Roman catholic church for their false teaching.For this they were burn at the stake.Historians estimate that in the middle ages and early reformation era more than 50,000,000 million martyrs perished at the hands of the papacy.When view from historical facts and the prophecies of the Bible, the catholic church is an organization of the anti-Christ which has destroyed all the truths of God.Paganized christianity by accepting all kinds of pagan gods and made numerous souls worship Satan not God.The inquisition was the most infamous and Devilish thing in human history.It was devised by popes and used by them for 500 years to maintain their power.The popes have created their own earthly church here on earth.The catholic church is not the church Jesus built on the Rock. The church of Christ are all born again believers and subject (submitted) unto Him and not to the pope..!
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division. Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority. Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all. Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation. As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like. And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody. I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences. And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
@@goyonman9655 And what about real presence in the Eucharist, hierarchy of priesthood, explaining the scriptures within the Church and primacy of Rome? Church Fathers and early sources are clear about them, so you believe in these truths and remain protestant? Or you deny truths known to the early Church?
Do you feel comfortable in a church by a mad man heretic who was excommunicated. Why do you belong to a false church started by a man vs belonging to the Catholic Church started by the God man Jesus Christ? Just curious....
@@quiricomazarin476 why does it sound like you’re taking pleasure in calling Lutheran’s heretics? If you think we’re destined for hell, should not it sadden you?
So the claim the title made was that the early church was 100% Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic, yet the video didn’t provide any sort of sufficient evidence to make such a claim. It also didn’t touch on the fact that assuming the early church was Catholic how do we know they didn’t make a mistake? Simply because it was early how is it truer?
I was an athiest, then God led me to this podcast and now I'm saved, praise lord
God bless you!
Are you being facetious or did you find truth in the Holy Catholic Church? If the latter, right on brother! I was a cradle Catholic that went away at 13 and didn’t come back until 43. You should have seen the look on my Priest’s face when I told him that it was 30 years since my last confession!
@@jeffjacobson59 FACTS"
--The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13
--The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41
FACTS:
About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath"
Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174.
"The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day?
"Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910.
What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change or the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
FACTS:
Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath
Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday)
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday)
Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).
Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday)
Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday)
Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday)
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday)
John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one,
John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early,
(Sunday)
What's facetious about being saved by the one true lord?
@@jeffjacobson59 the 10 commandments are the law of God. They are one unit. One cannot mix-and-match
Remember two things as well: the 10 commandments are the law of God. They are one unit. One cannot mix-and-match, edit, alter, or change any one of them without damaging the whole. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy is just as valid as thou shalt not steal or kill. If you’ve broken any one of them, it is like breaking them all. Also, the Sabbath means rest from work. It does not mean a church service, singing, communion, preaching, or prayer. We do those things every day. That does not make those days a “Sabbath”. Some so-called “proofs” of the Sabbath being “changed” involve saying that someone prayed (or anything else) on a day other than the seventh. So what?
>>>>>Mary is worshipped: “…when she [Mary] is the subject of preaching and worship she prompts the faithful to come to her Son…” (Vatican Council II, p. 420)
>>>>About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath"
Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174.
"The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day?
"Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910.
What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
I spoke with a Biblical literalist who was a Southern Baptist a few years ago, and even he admitted the early Christians resembled that of what we see in Catholicism. Knowing that; why he remains a Southern Baptist beats me.
I know…..right?
@YAJUN YUAN not really. The Church is not "selective" per se, as you present it in your comment. He magisterium upholds doctrine and true teachings. There are letters written by Saints, Church Fathers etc. that do not hold Jesus's teachings. For instance, St. Augustine has written heretical letters BEFORE he converted and became Christian. Sometimes people (either intentionally or out of ignorance) will quote from those heretical letters. It is later, as a convert to the Church, that St. Augustine has approved manuscripts defending the Faith.
@YAJUN YUAN the problem is...Early Church fathers are Very Catholic...and if there are errors , which they disagree with the Magisterium...These errors are so minimal....
For Protestantism ....They need to really Delete 2/3 of the Early Church fathers writings to make it look like protestant...
@YAJUN YUAN really??....Did you read the apostolic Fathers....??...even the name CATHOLIC was already mentioned by the Apostolic fathers...LOL
@YAJUN YUAN The Apostolic fathers even gave names to the Heretics at that time...so basically, there are already Cults with various names, who are enemies of the apostolic Fathers... 🙄🙄
Jesus was literally telling John in the book of the Apocalypse to write to POLYCARP in Smyrna. My mind was blown when I saw that connection. The Early Church was the Catholic Church is such an amazing book by Joe. Love it.
Which verse is it??
@@beatlecristian Revelation 2:8-10
@YAJUN YUAN Him being 27 is irrelevant. St. Stephen was 29 when he died and he was a deacon (although deacons in apostolic times were also priests in practice). St. John the Apostle was in his late teens early 20s roughly when Jesus started his ministry. Talk about a young bishop! A modern example would be Cardinal Arinze who became a Bishop at 32! So a young Bishop is rare but not bizarre. Also since Polaycarp was not only the first Bishop of Smyrna, but the close disciple of John I wouldn't put it past John to make his closest pupil a Bishop young and early.
Psst, Polycarp rejected the "traditions of [Rome's] elders".
Pope Clement was mentioned in the book of acts also.
As a Catholic Christian I appreciate that even Martin Luther himself knew the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. Quote, “Probably the most compelling evidence in support of the truth claims of the Catholic Church outside of scripture and the Church fathers, probably comes from Martin Luther himself who wrote in 1522AD in a sermon,
"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc.," - Sermon for the Sunday after Christ's Ascension; John 15:26-16:4, page 265, paragraph 28.
Notice the use of words "The true church". In other words Martin Luther is conceding that the Catholic church is the true church. A few years later (1537AD) Martin Luther would write,
"We concede - as we must - that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament (Holy Eucharist), and the pulpit from them.
What would we know of these if it were not for them?" - Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16, Vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304.
Clearly the above is an admission of the preeminence of the church of Rome that the father of the reformation is admitting.” God bless you.
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division.
Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority.
Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all.
Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation.
As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like.
And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody.
I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences.
And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
Can you please send this comment to me in a form that I can copy? Perhaps reposting it to my request it will pop up in my email thread. Thank you.
@@grandpahand7410 Check this from the Beggers All
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/05/luther-we-concede-to-papacy-that-they.html?m=1
@@grandpahand7410 BTW: Please realize that the quotes I sited are from a couple of sermons that are much longer where Luther justifies his split from the Church for many reasons. Like all heretics they will justify anything they do.
@@Spiritof76Catholic I realize that. I was just looking to paste out the test so I can do further research without having to go back into UA-cam all the time. Thanks.
As an Orthodox Christian I would say that when St. Ignatius says that it is necessary to be in agreement with Rome, he means that this is necessary for the sake of church unity, since Rome is the first see in importance, and the other churches look to Rome for leadership. He isn't saying that Rome cannot err. Today even some Roman Catholics claim that the current pope is a heretic. What matters is not blind obedience to Rome, but maintaining the faith once handed to the apostles.
“Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans..” - Ignatius letter to the Romans Intro
“..You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force”- Ignatius letter to the Romans chapter 3
Those "catholic" that calls the pope the heretic are in schism. They just start to become "protestants". Martin Luther was a Catholic monk before he started the protestant movement.
I am not sure I agree with your conclusion, even given your interpretation. It is true that we may not always agree with everything the Pope says or does. We can criticize the pope. Paul criticized St Peter and rebuked him. The papacy is protected from leading the Church astray, meaning the Pope is guaranteed to never officially teach anything contrary to the faith in his official capacity (encyclicals, ex cathedra twachings, bulls, etc...). The Bishop of Rome is also unique in that he alone holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
If your interpretation is correct, we should expect a softening of the language over time, yet when we get to Irenaeus who knew two of John's disciples we are told Rome is the "very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority."
This seems contrary to your loose interpretation of Ignatius
I can only answer that at the time Irenaeus wrote this, the church of Rome had not yet departed from the Orthodox Christian faith. As a result of its departure from that faith, (in the eleventh century, if not earlier) it separated itself from the Church, the body of Christ. Therefore, within the Church of Christ, the bishop of Rome no longer has any authority.@@daddydaycareky
@@William_Farmer this is a subjective opinion. I think it would be more accurate to say that you personally reject the authority of the Pope after a certain period of time because you personally disagree with a certain teaching or action.
I’d like to think of myself as a pretty well educated Catholic, since I spend a fair amount of time studying our doctrine and its origins. However, listening to gentlemen like this expound on their knowledge base makes me feel terribly ignorant. There is so much I don’t know. I feel truly blessed to be able to listen to this particular podcast and a few others.
Joe Heschmeyer's own podcast, "Shameless Popery" is fantastic too. There's always more to learn.
>>WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD RESTED on the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD BLESSED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD SANCTIFIED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD NAMED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK to make that day special???
WHERE in the Bible does it say GOD DECLARED the FIRST DAY of the WEEK as HIS HOLY DAY to make that day special???
Book, chapter and verse!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where in the bible is said Mary can hear our prayers? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary went to/will go to heaven? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is a mediator/imtercessor? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary remained a virgin? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary was sinless? Book, chapter and verse
Where in the bible is said Mary is to be worshiped.prayed to? Book, chapter and verse
I KNOW absolutely NO Catholic will reply!!! If one does, every answer will be either out of context, or twisted scripture.
GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.
It is jaw-dropping to see that there are so many people who fervently believe that the Church established by the Apostles of Jesus Christ was Protestant, 1500 years before Protestantism existed in any way, shape or form. That is ignorance, delusion and bigotry on a scale that is hard to believe.
Most of them claim to be descended from 1st Century heretical groups.
@@demsrchildabusers7959 Thanks, B - I didn't know that at all. But doesn't that make them... well... heretics?
But seriously, folks, none of the 1st-century heretical groups survived more than a few years anyway, so still no continuation to the 16th century.
@@hugojames85 That's right. It's solely a philosophical connection.
@@demsrchildabusers7959 Not to mention an entirely fabricated one.
Appreciate the respectful conversation and the way Joe characteristically unpacks his thoughts in a clear and articulate manner.
When did the Church stop being conciliar? There doesn’t seem to be anything in scripture or in the church fathers that suggests that the bishop of Rome had any supremacy over councils, at least not in the unilateral, infallible way defined by Vatican I. Could Peter have overturned the Council of Jerusalem on his own? What about Silvester and Nicaea? I have a hard time hearing the claim of novelty against Protestants when a similar novelty exists as to the highest form of authority in the church on the Roman Catholic side.
Joe Heshmeyer also has a book "Pope Peter"
I am sure that you will get a lot out of it.
the Bishop of Rome has Authority because PEter died there and the predecessor of the Bishops of Rome is St. Peter... ... You don't find the place where the apostles died in the bible because This is something found in the writings and witness of the Early Christians...NOT the Bible since the bible does not talk about the places of the Death of the Apostles... 🙄🙄
Now...When it comes to Authority of St. Peter...The Early Christians have always used Matthew 16:18-19 as proof of Authority of ST. PEter....This verse has always been the Early Christian tradition of interpretation of Authority of ST. Peter, which Protestants suddenly twisted and denied... 🙄🙄
Orthodox catechumen here. The common defense I hear from my Catholic friends, whom I love, is that papal infallibility has only been used twice. It’s something like a veto. In Vatican I it’s depicted as something that the pope can declare on any matter of faith. However to me it doesn’t matter how many times it has been used, the fact that it is there is not in line with anything we see in the ancient church, and at the time many bishops outside of Rome opposed its passing. You’re absolutely right that, as we see in the early council of Jerusalem, early Rome was not first ABOVE equals as portrayed by Catholics now, but rather he was first among equals. Peter did not lead the Council of Jerusalem, for instance, as Jerusalem was not under his jurisdiction. Rome used to be in communion with, and even was first among equals with, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, the other Holy Sees. However, when Rome excommunicated the rest of its church in the east for not recognizing it as having authority ABOVE them, Rome lost that privileged seat. They went their own way. They portray Protestants in this video as not having much historical backing, which is true. This video should not be “The old church was Catholic”, but rather “the old church was not Protestant.”
@@Sergi25026 that's a complete LIE...if you dig deeper in History, Rome and PEter have authority....The Typical Mathew 16 :18-19 was even Quoted in the Ecumenical council....
3RD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, SESSION 3
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys🙄🙄 of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever🙄🙄 both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed POPE Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc."
-----3RD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, SESSION 3
@@Sergi25026 you just explained why I’m Orthodox
1. What came first, the Word of God in the Church or the Bible?
2. When did the Bible, as a book come into the world?
3. Who compiled and translated the scriptures into the book of the Bible?
4. Who numbered and added chapters & verses to the Bible so things were easier to navigate?
5. Who preserved and kept the book of the Bible alive during all ages?
6. What group of people were inspired by the Holy Spirit as to which texts should be in the book of the Bible?
7. Who then removed books from the Bible on their own accord to create their own narrative?
8. Who said they would never leave or abandon us and would be with us through all time?
@YAJUN YUAN 7 Luther
@YAJUN YUAN The Bible has been translated & revised numerous times. I can't believe a God inspired the Bible if He didn't even preserve it.
@@christeeleison9064 The bible was compiled by men who picked & chose among the manuscripts available to them (probably several hundred) & selected the ones that they thought should be included in the bible. & that agreement was hardly unanimous. Looking to the OT even the major religions can’t agree on how many books should be included. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, & the Eastern Orthodox have 51. Which one is correct?
But it’s important to recognize that you don’t have the original texts. You don’t even have copies of the originals. What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of …. you get the idea. & every time a copy was made there was an opportunity for copyist errors to creep in - especially since in many cases the copyist didn’t speak the language they were copying. Worse yet it provided the copyist with an opportunity to amend the text to agree with their own personal orthodoxy. & then come to translation errors, there are plenty. The Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects & all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, NIV, RCV & the KJV. I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," & nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible.
In addition to the many different Christian sects & Bibles, i have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects & are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed.
I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. On September 8 1957, the Jehovah's witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah's witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God?
Let me ask, if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and NT:
II Samuel 8:4 (vs) II Samuel 8:9-10 II Kings 8:26
II Samuel 6:23 Genesis 6:3 John 5:37
John 5:31 I Chronicles 18:4 I Chronicles 18:9-10
II Chronicles 22:2 II Samuel 21:8 Genesis 9:29
John 14:9 John 8:14
Only 2 contradictions of the NT have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin & Atonement are reviewed.
How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, & Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to 2 different authors, one unknown & the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; & yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.
And i looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary & learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. Human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible. Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature & human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The OT: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian's mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God's word. If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples & never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, & the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, & not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author's autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, & followed Him (Jesus)."
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He's & the Him's of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account & not words inspired by God.
It is worth noting, & well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present 4 "gospels" of the NT (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, & not by Jesus. Constantine's mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant & criminal who murdered his son, his wife & thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father."
@@truthhurts4928 🤦♂️
There were MULTIPLE languages spoken at the time of Jesus. Latin, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek. The area Jesus was born had tons of Greek speaking Jews.
Jesus and His disciples and Apostles likely spoke both Aramaic and Greek. The entire Old Testament was actually already translated into GREEK by GREEK Jews long before Jesus was born. This is called the Septuagint/LXX.
NT evidence clearly shows Jesus had read, quoted, and taught from the Hebrew Scriptures that were translated into the Greek.
You should change your name to "Ignorance Hurts" 😁
PS. ordered the books, that your guest spoke about and i will read them... and absolutely if this is valid, then understanding will follow.
A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. He knows the person of Jesus Christ very well. He does not doubt or confused because he knows the Gospel and the teachings of the Church well. He knows how to detect the Word in the midst of words. He is focus on Faith, Hope and Charity and on the Holy Cross.
quote--A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, ...unquote
That is an oxymoron!!
CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
Are you a FOLLOWER of the teachings of Cfrist??
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
----FACTS"
--The ONLY day GOD RESTED ON--Seventh day!! Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD BLESSED--Seventh dayt---Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD SANCTIFIED--Seventh day--Gen 2:1-3, EX 20:8-11
--The ONLY day GOD NAMED--Seventh day--SAbbath--Isaiah 58:13
--The ONLY day GOD DECLARES as HIS HOLY DAY--Seventh day--Isaiah 58:13, Matthew 24:36-41
----Facts:
Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath
Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday)
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday)
Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).
Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday)
Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday)
Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday)
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday)
John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one,
John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early,
(Sunday)
---About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath"
Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174.
"The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day?
"Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910.
What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
quote---A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. unquote
NO SUCH TERM, and a oxymoron----- Christian--A FOLLOWER of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!!
So, quote the Bible that tells of Jesus worshipping on Sunday.
Quote Jesus that says we should pray to Mary.
Quote Jesus that says Mary went to/or is in heaven.
Quote Jesus that says Mary can hear millions of prayers at once.
Quote Jesus that says A mere man is the head of His church.
----Here’s the thing-- the Bible, at least the parts relevant to this discussion-- the Torah-- is written in Hebrew and in Hebrew, our words for the days of the week are incredibly prosaic and simple.
Sunday is “Yom Rishon”, which literally means “1st day”. Monday is “Yom Sheini”, which literally means “second day”. What do you think “Yom Shlishi” means? Yes, “Third day” and yes, it’s Tuesday. Let’s skip ahead to “Yom Shishi”, the 6th day- Friday. Well now, what about the Seventh day? Well, we call that one “Shabbat”- the Sabbath.
FACTS:
About the catholic church: Change the Sabbath"
Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,- she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."- "A Doctrinal Catechism," by Rev. Stephen Keenan, page 174.
----"The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law."- Kansas City Catholic, Feb. 9, 1893.
---"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."- Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
----"Ques.- Which is the Sabbath day?
"Ans.- Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Ques.- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Ans.- We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday ."- "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.., page 50, third edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Pope Pius X, Jan. 25, 1910.
What was done at the Council of Laodicea was but one of the steps by which the change of the Sabbath was effected. The date usually given for this council is 364 A. D.
FACTS:
Biblical Proof the seventh day (Saturday) IS the Sabbath
Matt 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day......(.Saturday)
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, (Sunday)
Mark 15:42 - It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).
Mark 16:1-2 - When the Sabbath was over,(After sunset Saturday)
Mark 16:9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (Sunday)
Luke 23:54 It was Preparation Day, (friday) and the Sabbath was about to begin
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.( Just before sunset Friday)
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, (Sunday)
John 19:31 Now since it was preparation day (Friday), in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one,
John 19:42 because of the Jewish day of Preparation (Friday), since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. 42 And so, because it was the day of preparation for the Jewish Passover
--Either the Holy Bible is a lie, or the one that told you Sunday is a holy day lied.
Yet he still worships Mary.
@@mitchellosmer1293Jesus started Catholic church. Protestant churches started by men.
@@johnyang1420 quote---Jesus started Catholic church--unquote
NOPE!!! THE NAME CATHOLIC is not EVER mentioned in the Bible!!!
Every church started by Jesus was Christian!! Followers of the TEACHINGS of CHRIST!!!!
Roman Catholic Church does not predate any Scriptures. It came in ad300s. It was made the official religion of Rome in ad380 by Theodosius. Scriptures was written by Jewish Christian Apostles and Jewish Prophets. Not Roman Catholics. Acts 9:31 says nothing of Roman Catholic Church. Stop misquoting. Acts 9:31 clearly says the Christian Church spread to Judea Samaria and Galilee regions of Israel; not Rome. So all your claims fall to the ground. Bible only approves traditions of Jesus and Apostles. 2 Thes 2:15. But Bible rejects all man made unbiblical traditions of Pharisees and Roman Church alike. Mat 15, 23. Roman Church doctrines came from its own man made traditions. Not from Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures. 95% of them are so.
*** Jesus Christ didn't found the Catholic Church. it was the 325AD Council of Nicaea headed by Emperor Constantine 1 which was attended by bishops/popes of West and East Roman Empire May/Aug. 325AD
***Traditions
Tradition holds that the first Gentile church was founded in Antioch, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys to Rome.
ACTS-written between 70 Ad--90 AD--- CHRISTIANS--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!!
At least 40 years AFTER Christ!!!!------
*****When was the first Christian church built?
The earliest archeologically identified Christian church is a house church (domus ecclesiae), the Dura-Europos church, founded between 233 and 256. In the second half of the 3rd century AD, the first purpose-built halls for Christian worship (aula ecclesiae) began to be constructed.
CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!!
Built between 293 and 303, the building pre-dates the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, Israel, and the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, West Bank, both of which were constructed in the late 320s. The church is the first purpose-built Christian church discovered from the period before Christianity found favour with the Roman imperial governmen*****The oldest known purpose-built Christian church in the world is in Aqaba, Jordan. t. It even pre-dates the greatest of all the Roman anti-Christian persecutions, that of Diocletian in 303-313. The church, the ruins of which were excavated in 1998, is in the form of an east-west oriented basicila, with apse and aisles. It also had a narthex and chancel. Excavation has unearthed walls up to 4.5m 14ft 9in high. During its first phase the church would have held about 60 worshipers; it was later extended to hold about 100. The building appears to have been abandoned during the presecution of 303-311, then refurbished between 313 and 330. It was destroyed by an earthquake in 363.
**CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC
*** Built between 293 and 303, --CHRISTIAN--NOT CATHOLIC!!!!!!
I cannot wait to meet Joe tomorrow in Draper Utah for some great talks. I'll be buying that book for sure.
I’m reading his book currently :) very good so far just started the Eucharist and the Mass section
The mass is paganism.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 it came from Jesus in the Last supper. Your protestant services are pagan to the core with modern satanic music like rock and roll
Neither Christ or the apostles ever said mass and the apostles understood the metaphor Christ spoke about Him being the bread of life.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 you obviously have no clue what the word pagan means.
@@sammygomes7381 your opinion means nothing. Jesus spoke literally.
What of the Orthodox churches? At the council of Nicea the vast majority of bishops were from the east and were not subservient to the bishop of Rome.
chill
Well spoken,and correct!
During Calvin's time there were 12 total letters of Ignatius, and we now know that 5 were forgeries. So his skepticism towards the letters wasn't unfounded or just because of his doctrine.
Not to mention the ones we think are probably real, have multiple different (longer and shorter) recensions.
@@lucduchien The problem is that if the Catholic Church could deviate and no longer have the authority given by Jesus, it also follows that the Gospels can be corrupted and hence there is no basis for being a Christian at all.
@@theclassicaldiscourse I don't see how that follows. God is free to preserve Scripture in a way He hasn't preserved oral tradition. If one falls, it isn't necessary that the other falls. They aren't connected in that way
@@adamheida8549 If the authority of the Church can fail, the authority that is given by God, then much more can the Scriptures fail because they were compiled using the authority of the Church.
The early Church affirms many of the things that these days many Christians deny. St. John himself wrote that not all is written in the scriptures.
If I were to rely on my interpretation of the Bible, it would result in chaos, which is evident everywhere in the West. The problem is that all the early christians were members of the Catholic Church. They affirm the Papacy (I think Joe Heschmeyer said that in the video), and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Also, on studying history, you realise that several councils were held within the early church. And, an interesting factor is that if you trace from whom you became Christian , all of them merge with the Catholic Church at some point.
@@adamheida8549 Adam: You are forgetting about the organicity (living of faith) of preserving Scripture: it is done through inspired PEOPLE, like the Apostles and their successors. You seem fixed in Sola-Scriptura, where the text is superior and separable from the community (church) of those who taught it, wrote it, and preserved it in its worship (which is where the written tradition flourishes). “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Acts 2:42
You appeal to a random theory of how God can bypass His community of faith, abandon them to error, and somehow in time preserve the written Word from error??? Bad theology and chronology. Who gets to interpret it “free from error” if the Apostles and their successors are in error? How do we even know which books belong in the New&Old Testament?
Just listen to yourself and see the bad chronology: “God is free to preserve Scripture in a way He hasn’t preserve oral tradition.“ Question: Is God also free to preserve the Apostolic Church and its teaching, whether preached orally or in writing (Bible)? “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2Tes2:15
Jesus promised: “I will be always with you until the end of times” Matthew 19
Adam, re-consider your Biblical, historical, and rational basis, because Scripture is THE written expression of the living Apostolic of the Word of God. The church and its living faith and worship pre-existed the written texts; both cannot be divorced. Find out how the Bible was canonized.
Thank you for this accessible explanation.
An orthodox here. I enjoyed the video and was intrigued by the claim of your guest at the end. What may I read specifically that would compel me to think that the Bishop of Rome didn't merely have primacy, but supremacy? Joe Heschmeyer, the guest I presume, says that an early book of some saint presumably, has some five pages that point to supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I'd love to read those. Thank you.
P.S. I can cite exact words and letters and links of another Bishop of Rome, namely Saint Gregory the Great who calls any attempt to establish a universal bishop as a precursor to the Antichrist, if anyone is interested. He did not mince words. Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
Yeah can you send me the quotes from St Gregory? Also, I think many Catholics don't really know about Orthodoxy and they just assume it is either Protestant or Catholic.
I think he said it was St.Ireneus who wrote about it.
If you're interested I recommend recent interview with catholic and orthodox priests on the Gospel Simplicity UA-cam channel:) They talk about different perspectives and arguments about how Rome church was seen in the first ages:) The interview is very interesting, it's not a debate, not conclusive but very interesting arguments from both sides :)
Would love to read more about st. Gregory.
@@alexanderh2345 @DANtheMANofSIPA
Here is my article about it with direct links to the original letter as well as full context:
eodeo.wordpress.com/2022/11/22/saint-gregory-the-greats-thoughts-on-a-universal-bishop/
Guess you are just going to have to go on something called "faith", aren't ya!!!
Dr Gavin Ortlund needs to open his heart and mind to hear this.
He probably would have but he has a job and a life. Pray God opens him up; he’s a good man. Bias runs deep.
He’s like many Muslim clerics, who know their beliefs to be false, but preach them anyway.
“Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” (Tit 1:11, DRC)
@@thegoatofyoutube1787
"He doesn't agree with me, therefore he must have nefarious reasons"
@@fantasia55
You seem to know things about this man he doesn't say
What do you mean he "knows" his belief to be false
I’ve been reading all the earliest writings. …. And they use the terms bishop and presbytery interchangeably to refer to the same office. Usually referring to a plurality.
But no pope.
@@sammygomes7381 correct.
@Pints with Aquinas I love the Roman Catholic Church, but I found my home at the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is mostly because I couldn’t deal with Pope Francis. There were also some theological issues I had and felt more comfortable with Orthodox Christianity. However, I just watched St. Augustine the movie today and he truly was a great Latin Church Father.
In addition, if you’re wondering, I was raised in the Pentecostal movement and went to a Southern Baptist church for a while and got baptized in one. Honestly, my family kept moving to a different mega church or Baptist church every few years. Nonetheless, I know I’m home in the Greek Orthodox Church ( I converted in December 2020), and I pray to God we can reunite someday. God bless you! Finally, you should have more comfortable discussions with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Jesus wants us all to get along, even when we debate each other.
Why not just go to any of the Eastern Catholic Churches.. like Byzantine Catholic Church for one. They are orthodox and in communion with the Holy Father? Why leave Catholicism? That makes no sense
@elijahc.brooks3493 EO is schismatic. But, there is a way to reject Bergoglio, without rejecting the papacy. Sedevacantism. There are many sede parishes around, but you may have to drive a bit to get there. AMDG
@ I consider myself an Orthodox Catholic, if that makes you feel better.
I shared this post with a friend that shared a post stating that the Catholic Church was founded in 325 AD in the Nicaea Council...
I'm currently studying the early Church fathers and I have several questions. Given that there were established churches in Rome, Constantinople, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc., why would the authority rest with the bishop of Rome? Also, we all probably know people who were baptized into the Church but turned away early in life and never returned. In what sense could we call them "saved"?
A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him. The Holy Spirit is on him and enlightens him (Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan).
quote----A Christian loves the Cross and carries it. He loves the Christ and he accepts that the world hates him.... unquote
NO true "christian" would ever wear a cross!!!!
@@adelbertleblanc1846
The Holy Spirit is on Him ???
@@mitchellosmer1293 why not?
@@doubtingthomas9117 quote---why not?--unquote
Idol worship
@@mitchellosmer1293 How is simply wearing a cross idol “worship”?
Some comments are weird... that's why I would say this : A Catholic Christian doesn't care about mockery, attacks and insults. he remains focus on the Word made flesh. He knows the person of Jesus Christ very well. He does not doubt or confused because he knows the Gospel and the teachings of the Church well. He knows how to detect the Word in the midst of words. He is focus on Faith, Hope and Charity and on the Holy Cross.
IF Catholics focus on the word made flesh why follow the following manmade dogma. Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
There is no such person in the word of God.
@@sammygomes7381 Sammy, You are a true Teacher and a great THEOLOGIAN. I can not answer to You. Please find a Catholic priest near to You and ask ALL your question to him. So, I can only say : god bless You and your familiy. Have a nice a day !
@@sammygomes7381sounds a lot like the woman in Revelations 12 to me
@@charliesims8482 the woman in Rev 12 is the Nation of Israel. Nothing in the following statement has anything to do with a biblical person, just a goddess and idol. Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
@@sammygomes7381why are you wasting your time. They are dead and delusional. No saint in the new covenant was praying to Mary and deceased people
They are all cursed and will continue hailing Mary and PRAYING TO DEMONS rhey call SAINTS
STOP sir. You are constantly doing what Jesus told us not to do
Casting pearls to SWINE. STOP.
Thank you for the great explanation.
What did they say about baptism and where can I read it?
The simple group of Jesus apostles and disciples, most of whom were "unlettered & ordinary men" (Acts 4:13) were Jews who believed in ONE God. They theyen accept Jesus as "God's Son" ( Matt 16:16 worrds of Peter!) Acts 1-4 shows they were qorshiping the Sovereign Lord God who had raised his 'servant', His son from the dead" ( see Acts 3:26. 4:24). The 'Catholic church' formed doctrines COMPLETELY different to the earliest 'church'. There was no 'trinity'. no'immortal sou;' no 'succession of saints' e.t.c all FALSE!
The truth is that The early church is what you see now in the Eastern Orthodox churches. There was only one Christian church. Then came the great schism and Vatican 2. The western church (Rome) now has no resemblance to original Christianity.
IC XC NIKA
Early Christianity was all about the Mass.
Hmm interesting. Because at the second Ecumenical council of Nicaea the eastern orthodox approved of the papacy before the schism.
Other than the ancient rituals of the Apostles which eventually became the Mass/Divine Liturgy each of these rituals tracing back to one of the Apostles, in the intention of the essence of the ritual and the general structure and purpose of of it, the Eucharistic offering to God, and the discipline for the people receiving it worthily, there's more evidence for the Catholic Church's legitimacy other than it's ancient origins.
The episcopacy and Apostolic Succession was necessary in the view the Apostles, or else they wouldn't have chosen Matthias as the Apostolic Successor of Judas Iscariot, and would have merely continued their activities without concerning themselves over this, this isn't explicitly written in the Bible, but it's there.
The adherence of the Catholic religion to Natural Law is what sets it apart from the Orthodox, as there is a consistent official practice in regards to matters of faith and morals with a philosophical foundation, at least in matters which are formally defined. While the many EO bishops vary on stances regarding contraception and divorce.
Eventually one Church has to be the one of the churches has to be protected by the Holy Spirit and they can't both be right. There is a need for doctrinal clarity in matters of morals as that can determine the salvation of individuals, and such cannot be found in the EO churches.
In regards to the supernatural, it is rather curious that all officially approved apparitions by the Catholic Church such as Fátima and Lourdes there is mention dogmas not approved by the Orthodox by what would otherwise be children uneducated in such theological matters, testimonies which stand up to scrutiny. And that there are sufficient miracles related to the places which promote this stories to give them legitimacy, as it would be expected that God would not perform miracles when they would be used to promote false theology.
If the promise that the Holy Spirit would remain on the Church until the end of time and that "the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it" is false, then that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Bible as a whole, and we wouldn't be able to trust anything.
As it is the opinion of most Saints both the Western Fathers and the Greek Fathers, the majority of Catholic adults are not living in accordance with their state in life, they speculated that the majority of them will be lost. And that the odds are worse for those not in communion with the Catholic Church, because of their errors on moral matters, less access to grace (Sacraments may be valid but not licit in schismatic factions, except in danger of death).
If the majority were lost back then it is safe to assume it it worse now. With the scandals of the XX and XXI century clergy who have modernist views causing doctrinal confusion, and laxity and lack of virtue in the laity.
Papal infallibility, this is what separates Orthodoxy from Papism, also the Orthodox view on marriage is that you can have up to 3 divorces. Tell me, why the mixed bag with Catholics when it comes to gay marriage?
This is something of a parody.
Claims of papal supremacy are based on v weak arguments & the diversions in doctrine since 1054 that have followed were all based on that fallacious authority.
It involves circular thinking followed
@@Durnyful Look up how many of the Church Fathers that have been forged by Papists, these forgeries try to prove papal supremacy, among many other Catholic lies
Wonderful work. I’d like to hear more about issues outside the low hanging fruit. Links please.
Where can I hear Jimmy Akin talking about praying to saints as having doctrinal development?
What did the apostles teach. They never taught mass, never claimed they could turn bread into the body of Christ, never taught we had to eat Christ as they understood the Jewish metaphor of bread equating to the word of God and eating it was to read the word.
Because of the Euchariiiiiiiist
There man made up Eucharist which they try to FOCUS on instead of JESUS GETTING THE HOLY GHOST
@@TriciaRP Man made? “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them” John 6:56
The Eucharist doesn’t take out the focus out of the Holy Spirit. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit abide in us. But in order for Jesus to abide in us we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood as he says.
Have you eat Jesus?
@@TriciaRP John 6:53-55 - So Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink."
@@EdgardoSilva-od3td Bread is a Jewish metaphor for reading the word of God. And what did God say in the OT, and the disciples say in Acts about drinking blood?
Keep reading please.
John 6:63 ESV
[63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The Orthodox Church says there was only the Orthodox Church until the Catholic Church started pushing the pope as head over all other Bishops, and I believe other things lead to the schism, which again according to the O.C. the R.C. moved away from what the Church was, thus creating the Roman Catholic Church, while the Orthodox Church continued as the Church had been from the beginning. They have a pretty solid argument.
How come the Orthodox Church went nationalistic and the Catholic Church did not?
And what of Peter?
History says otherwise.
Hi and thx for replying. The history I’m familiar with is in Scripture starting with Isaiah 22:22. Later in Matthew 16:19, the Apostles would have been very clear in Jesus’ meaning. As am I.
@@blandinalecce7572 we have the same interpretation. Was replying to jermyspencer's take on the schism.
Look at the doctrines, dogmas and beliefs of modern Catholicism.
We can see the time line of their changing theology.
So how can we say that the Catholic church is the same as the early church?
Explain us : what is changed in the church ??
Please explain us !
Nothing has changed 😂 I been goinng too masses since I was a kid go experience instead of being behind a keyboard n listening too others
I am Catholic too, just not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism started under emperor Constantine by Eusebius. It was Eusebius that did the rewriting of history to centralize power around Rome.
@@HillbillyBlack Doesn't take a wizard to start a fire, and rewrite history with the few resources they had.
@@HillbillyBlackI do not consider the writings of Irenaeus to be reliable. Good chance Eusebius modified some of his writings.
@@HillbillyBlack It is nice to see someone like you, who also studies hard. To my understanding, they (Jews) relied heavily on oral traditions (Paul to my understanding in 2 Thessalonians 2, was referring to the Jewish traditions, not RCC traditions we have today). I came to the same conclusion as Ed Stevens, all of the New Testament canon was finished by AD66. Knowledge ceased that year (revelation from God). This was the same year the Roman Jewish war started.
Lmfao
@@soteriology400 with all due respect. How could Constantine start a church when he wasn’t even the pope, bishop or priest let alone a deacon? That makes no sense
What is this book? and how can I get it? Is this from Jimmy Akin?
The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyer
Wow this is great! Thank you!
Blessed are Church Fathers who kept the Gospel of Jesus Christ alive as we have it in Catholicism today.
Thanks you two.
To put 200 years into context, we’re about 200 years from the founding of mormonism and it’s a well separated from some original teachings/practices.
Not really. There are still many mormons that practice it just like Joseph Smith. Polygamy and all. The problem with this comparison is mormonism allows for their "prophets" to receive divine revelation everyday, even if it goes against scripture. The Catholic Church can't do that. Its bound by scripture and it never changes dogma if its spoken through just one person. If God wants us to adapt, he'll let us know through the magisterium and it won't contradict scripture
@@MasterKeyMagic : Really ? How about the requirement of the Bishop to be the husband of one wife ? (1 Tim 3 :2)
@@VoiceofTruth-iv8pq Thats not what it says at all. It says married only once, as in if you remarried you cannot become a bishop
@@VoiceofTruth-iv8pqWas St Paul or St John married? They weren't married. That would majorly contradict your point, sir.
@@MasterKeyMagic : Really : The Greek literally says "to be of one woman." It is translated "husband of one wife " in virtually all bibles on Biblehub. The only alternate renderings I could find said "faithful to your wife.".
Peter was married and history tells us so were many other 'Bishops' in the early Church..
This is no doubt a short clip from a much longer discussion.. However, I thought the early Church was comprised of Jewish Christians. Well, at least it was according to the book of Acts. There were remnants of Jewish Christian groups even in later cebturies. By this tine, gnostic Christian grous had also appeared. All these groups traced their origin back to an Apostle.
What about Jewish ethnicity refutes their ability to believe Catholic doctrines on baptism, communion, bishops, etc? Not sure what point you're making...
@@DavidLarson100 : The fact that such diverse groups existed for so long suggests that these early Christian communities did not believe in 'Catholic doctrine' . Doctrines that emerged later and were eventually triumphant does not mean they were the beliefs of the very first Christian groups.
@@JosephSmith-ph4xr Read the writings of the very early first Christians, stuff like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas and Ireaneus. Focus on those who were connected with Apostles not random people who mixed various belief systems, like Gnostic Christians.
@@DavidLarson100 : I have their writings in my library. Where is the teaching that God is one in essence.substance but three in person ? It is clear that is we read Clement and the writings just after the turn of the century, such ideas had no been fully formulated or expressed and so were not a requirement of the very first Christians.
I Peter 3:21, while comparing baptism to the saving of Noah's family, it also says that it doesn't remove the filth of the flesh but is the answer of good conscience. If it doesn't remove our filth, how then does it save us? We cannot be unclean and enter the presence of God. We need redemption, but it doesn't say that. It says it brings good conscience toward the Lord. Therefore, we have a contradiction in meaning here.
So, what is Peter really saying? I think the conscience part is easy, pointing to the Holy Spirit descending upon us and living in us, as promised by Christ when we are born again.
What are we saved from then? I think it's from ourselves. The entirety of I Peter 3 is about conduct and conscience is first mentioned in verse 16 and redressed in verse 21. So, if we seek continuity of this passage, Peter is not talking about salvation or being saved from sin, but that of our own minds. We that are without the Holy Spirit are not of good conscience and without that, we would suffer at the result of our own understanding.
To believe that I Peter is speaking of salvation is to ignore the topic continuity along with the words that follow in parenthesis (for clarification), which speak of receiving good conscience, not the removal of our filthy (sinful) flesh.
Also, going back to the days of the early church, there weren't Bibles around for people to study. They had to hear and remember, and churches messed things up by forgetting some of the entirety of the Apostolic instruction, thus the copying of letters and preserving them for future study and reference for the scholars. If everything was so cut and dry on being acquainted with the Apostles, why then was there a departure from the original church of Antioch in 70 A.D.? Paul is claimed in this video to have died around 100 A.D. and offers up corrections to the churches he wrote letters to.
Peter is speaking of baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water.
@@sammygomes7381your wrong lmfao
@@Akhmatceila777 water doesn't save
@@Akhmatceila777 And when did those 120 that received baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 get baptized with water?
The Vaudois claimed their gospel from Paul during his ministry. They got their gospel from an apostle as well, and somehow it wasn't the same as the Catholics.
Good morning brothers
“Baptism now saves you…”
Yes, because salvation is more than some mental ascent; of “I believe Jesus died for me.” It is a life change by which you have died, resurrected, and are continually dying and resurrecting unto a newness of life. But baptism is the entrance into this new life through the birthing waters of baptism.
The thief on the cross had no baptism. But he went to paradise.
We need to be baptised into the body of Christ when we are born again ...that baptism is of the spirit. So a person any person at crisis of death can say Jesus I believe in you. Forgive me of my sins. And he will be baptised by the holy spirit. His salvation is secured.
And if he can get out to that crisis and live ..he must join a church and get water baptised. Paul says in rom 6...that water baptism is a clear indicator that you have died to the old live and arise in the new life in Christ.
The rc church taught you guys wrong...
When Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born of water and the spirit... Nico said how can I go back into my mum's womb.....
Nico was not confused as to what Jesus was referring.... Jesus meant you must be born of a womb with water bag. Ie a natural birth. Then Jesus also said so after you are born of a natural birth you must now be born of the spirit. Jesus was talking about two births. One is done by mum and dad, the other is done by the spirit of god.
The church just looks at the whole thing and says to you...uhhh this water means we must baptised you to go to heaven ...get it..how they gv so much power to themselves....so if they don't baptize you ..how are you going to go to heaven?!
Look at Cornelius..... Peter spoke to the family ..they were believing from the minute peter started speaking...and the holy spirit fell on the whole family and they spoke in tongues......so the family believed in Jesus and were spirit baptised on the spot. They were already saved according to God, if and earthquake happened and they died they were all saved already.
Now peter looking at what happened said...if they already received the holy spirit what is stopping me of baptising them with water......
Water baptism is very important . But it's not why the church says. Water baptism cannot save any one. It's faith in Jesus that saves you.
I agree with both "baptism now saves you" and "faith is more than mental ascent", which is why I wonder why Romans like to bring up James to "deafeat" sola fide. The faith described in James 2 is obviously mere mental ascent, which is why his statement has to be looked at in light of Paul, who clearly says sola fide.
Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).
Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.'
"So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”
Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).
Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
@@wicomms :
"The thief on the cross had no baptism... ?
But how do you know that?
He may have been one of the multitude that had been baptized in the Jordan.
But, even if he had no Sacramental Baptism, his confession, repentance, sorrow and appeal for God's mercy constitutes a Spiritual Baptism.
@@alhilford2345 how I know that? He first reviled Jesus?! ....if he did go for John's baptism he would not have cursed Jesus first.
You must think abt the big picture. That story is there for anyone who thinks that we need a person or church to stand as mediator between us and God. The example shown is No. God can save anyone any time . I read that ppl came to the church and asked that their loved one died with no baptism?! So they made a rule that one can get baptised on behalf of their loved one...why did they do something so ridiculous. Because church put it out there that one needs baptism inorder to be saved, which is not true.
I believe that the first church is the Ancient Antiochene Church of God where we were first called "Christian".
and who was the first BISHOP of the Antiochene Church ? I think he was SAINT JAMES is it true ?
Bingo
quote----I believe that the first church is the Ancient Antiochene Church of God where we were first called "Christian".... unqiote
What is a "Christian"??
CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
FOLLOWERS of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!!
******Written 2000 years ago! NOT my interpretation!!!
>>>
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
--And NO CATHOLIC follows Christ and HIS Teachings!!
I suggest you ask yourself: Is this what Christ taught???
----
1:47 where are the texts of this account? Did apostle John disciples write inspired texts?
They don't care about inspired texts, or even much about scripture. They care about traditions. Then they care about scripture when they need to backdate their traditions and shoehorn them into scripture.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 i notice u said u r descendants of joan de arc?
If the early church , was 100% Catholic, then how come the Catholic Jesus had a mother? And how come the Catholic Mary only had Jesus,? On the other hand the Biblical Mary had at least 6 children after Jesus. Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55-56... "And to the disciple, Here is your Mother". John 19:27.🙄
Except there was no mention of a Pope anywhere in the writings of the early Fathers prior to the schism. The Didache written around the 2nd century was believed to be one of the first “instruction manuals” for the church. Pretty odd there is no mention of an infallible bishop we are supposed to rely on. Nor is there in the Bible, since Jesus even made reference to the infallibility of St. Peter. Pretty important I would think. The Church was catholic (little c, meaning United or universal) but they were not Roman Catholic.
The pope was called the bishop of Rome. Plus how does your comments validate your 40,000 man-made protestant cults each preaching different gospels of salvation that are 500 year old MAX
@@michaelwachira8484 who was the first trinitarian? ..
There is no such thing as a little "c" Catholic Church. This is a protestant fabrication. It was always the "big C".
St. Ignatius of Antioch called the true Church "Katholikos" in the early 100's to distinguish it from heretical groups who were already going off with their own teachings and yet still calling themselves "Christian." So the true Church needed a proper name of its own. If they were all Christian, and united in all of their teachings, there would have been no need to come up with another title. There was only ONE that was meant to spread around the world.
The Bible in its current form wasn't even determined until the 300's, and it was the councils of the Catholic Church that closed the canon.
Even the J3ws didn't close their own canon until about 100 years after Christ's death.
"Roman" (actually Latin is the correct title) is only one of over 20 rites that are all in communion with each other and the pope. The pope just needs a single seat where he is expected to be most of the time, just as the president of the USA has his seat in DC yet he is just as much the president of the rest of the country.
@julieelizabeth4856 St. Cyprian of Carthage: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power...”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)
The myth that the United States was established as a “democracy” granting its citizens “equal” rights, only to see in recent years for the reiteration of this myth to be disowned as not only inaccurate, but racist/patriarchal/bigoted. Nevertheless, this national myth is a popular example of how something that would have made no sense in 1776 or 1789 two centuries later arose to become a dominant myth that took considerable effort to undo.
It is We the People of these United States. The president is "supposed" to enact the will of the people. Not the other way around.
All that the word kathilkos means is universal. As in the Nicene Creed. "We believe in one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church." The Creed is not just about Rome.
If you are reading directly from Scripture and getting all your doctrines from there, so where did you find purgatory and the assumption of Mary? Indulgences?
Another ignorant person.
Another ignorant person.
The church as well as its doctrine existed before the Bible. How do you think people followed Jesus or learned about the faith. THE CHURCH, because the church came first. The gates of hell will not prevail against his church.
@@HillbillyBlack Nowhere in the bible says that if something is not in the bible it must not be true. Sola Scriture is not even in the bible.
@@HillbillyBlack Answer: The holy tradition and the magisterium. If you believe that the holy spirit guided the authors of the bible, why can't you believe that the holy spirit guides the men leading the Catholic church by apostolic succession?
Or could be Orthodox 😀
6:12
Or you could be Albanian
@@timothyp.1392 Yea, I got to that point right after I typed that comment. Still, my comment was based on the title, so I let it stand.
@@dwightschrute900 Have no idea what you're referring to.
@@timothyp.1392 it's weird when Catholic vs Orthodox boils down to "the pope". Like, the existence of the Pope is so non-central it can't possibly be the make or break point. Like, can you have a pope? Sure. Should you? Maybe. Is it MANDATORY THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE POPE IS IMPORTANT? No.
The distinction between Orthodox and Catholic simply didn't exist for hundreds of years. Trying to claim it is one or the other is nonsensical.
I think the Catholics and Orthodox must agree on the early church, or we've devolved into retroactive sectarianism. That kind of IS protestantism at it's core.
Also, if Catholics are getting the reading of scripture as per the Apostles.. Then why doesn't it match with the new testament.
Ignatius taught that local congregations should choose their bishops and that is similar to the Apostles teaching that local congregations should choose their own elders and deacons. But, Ignatius did not say they should have some other bishop lay hands to pass down some apostolic succession.
Great short video. Joe distills things down in an effective way what the church fathers taught. Matt’s enthusiasm and general attitude is quite catchy! 🤠
Also the early church was catholic, which means universal but not Roman Catholic.
Catholic is catholic. The Catholic Church of today came directly from the early church, which was called catholic.
@@jzak5723 Where do you prove that claim ? 🤔😎
@@tomrudolsen6235
History proves it.
The term "Roman Catholic " is a misnomer. The term "Roman " was applied to the Church by Henry VIII to distinguish between the Church headed by him and the Church headed by the Pope. The official name of the Church is Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Knowing Church history is essential to knowing Christianity! God bless
Let us say it was English catholic to calm down your fears. However we can say it was catholic by practice and belief.
These would be appealing arguments if there had been no changes to the church in the last 1500 years. But lots of fluff has crept in.
Having grown up protestant I would say, most protestants object not to church hierarchy per se but to elevation of saints, pope, Mary and a focus on idols and angels-ology generally as opposed to Jesus.
If the catholic church was always orthodox and Jesus-focused (like the Jesuits?) there would be fewer objections to its authority from protestants.
Arguably the catholic church ceased to be literally catholic in the first schism (filioque etc), when rather than being universal for all the churches i.e. catholic implies universal and in agreement with the at the time other orthodox churches, it demanded obedience and fealty to Rome. Technically then, it is not catholic church but the Church of Rome. One could make the argument that Peter's mantle has been passed on to the remaining catholic i.e. universal church of orthodoxy at that point. Hard to say and I am no biased either way as far as I can tell.
Regardless, given the fractional non-orthodox tendancies of protestant churches, and the potential for them to go wildly off tangent, esp re feminine worship styles, many Christians myself included would conceivably subject ourselves to (and actively support) Rome for the sake of Christ's words to Peter were it to become (and while it were to remain) more obviously orthodox.
No problems with filioque here either. Just the way it was done, i.e. popery. I hope the church can one day reign in the popes power generally and go more orthodox...maybe even unite. That would be a valuable message to the world and one which protestants could not ignore.
Agreed
I gotta dissagree with you about how elevating the saints, Mary, and so on is detracting from our focus on Jesus.
A great example is how to "pray the rosary." It sounds like we pray to Mary, and that's all there is to it. But no, every time we say the "Hail Mary" prayer ten times, we are thinking or meditating on the Life of Christ.
EVERYTHING point back to Him.
A great question to ask ourselves is this.
Why did God do ANY of this?
The virgin birth, heaven and Hell, his pain and suffering on the cross, angels, why anything at all?
Opposed to just picking out His sheep from the start because he knows all things.
I don't know the answer, but He, in his perfect wisdom, chose to unfold everything the way it did. So, I want to embrace everything good because it could only lead back to Him.
@@Veritas231 Every hail Mary is a prayer to a goddess and idol as there was no woman in the bible that was immaculate, God doesn't have a mother and the dead cannot hear us, and yes, she is dead in the flesh.
@sammygomes7381
You're wrong on all of these things. You've been taught to hate the Catholic church.
Does your church have apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles?
Nope.
Christ has been gone for almost 2000 years now.
How long has your church denomination been around??
Not even a 1,000 years.
The Catholic church has the authority to teach. And has been used mightily by Christ for nearly 2,000 years now
@@Veritas231 quote---The Catholic church has the authority to teach....unquote
PROVE IT with the HOLY WORD of GOD!!!!
This is a lie. The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.
The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?
The answer is simple - the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.
Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church’s teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.
I want to ask in a gentle and respectful way, does the Roman church as it is today resemble the early church in a correct and meaningful way? I know that this an unanswerable in the comment section, can anyone recommend a book/s that cover this topic?
I want to second this. I’m replying so that I get a notification if someone answers. Sorry if I got your hopes up for a response!
Fact is that secondary sources are seriously prone to selective quotes from selective early church writers that fit their own agendas. It would require double-checking the primary sources in context to get a true picture .
I’ve got to be honest, the early church was Christ himself and his disciples and yes He can relate to a mixture of categories. He was Jewish and He was also a Protestant of that religion. He protested the church on so many occasions to bring the point home that it was about the spirit of God more than about tradition.
If we ever want to know where Jesus is on all of this, it is there ~ God centred beyond any tradition.
It is about love and healing but it is always God first above any idolatry to even earthly tradition or times. So for example if the Lenten process becomes an idol over what the Holy Spirit speaks to us uniquely, then we are in grace (should say grave however left auto spell word ‘grace’ in as very important) danger already.
I hope this gives you who Jesus was and is. He would not really be bound in such a way as perhaps you suggest. He is beyond earthly religion.
Hope this helps.
"He was not bound by earthly religion" Yet was subject to his earthly parents (who followed Jewish law to the letter) and practiced Jewish laws himself perfectly until his death... how does your argument stand up to him being circumcised? Or the purification in the temple where Simeon meets him? Or the keeping of the Sabbath. Or a billion other examples in the Bible?
"He protested the Church on so many occasions." No. He didn't not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He fulfilled the Jewish law better than the pharasees and saducees. They were amazed at his grasp of Jewish law at 12 years old.
"It was about the spirit of God more than about tradition." No. It was about having works and cleanness more than compassion. Which is a trap anyone can fall into. But having tradition is not in and of itself an evil.
Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping statues and pictures, then on Christmas they pull out...guess what...statues and pictures and little nativity scenes. To teach their children about Christ's birth and as a reminder to themselves. Which is literally what Catholics use them for as well...
Protestants don't like repetitive prayers, yet everyone knows their version of the Our Father.
If God is the same yesterday, today and, tomorrow then the God of the old Testament who specified how He wanted His temple built down to most specific measurements, then struck down 2 men who did the incense wrong, then explain to me why people think they can interpret what God wants in His Own House now?
I'll give you a clue, it's called Modernism.
Jesus started Catholic church. Protestant churches started by men.
Jesus started the tradition of the Catholic church.
That is totally inaccurate. Jesus was not a protestant of the Jewish faith. He said it himself that he was a fulfillment of the Jewish religion. You mistake Him being against the Pharisees as being against the religion. That is not true.
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division.
Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority.
Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all.
Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation.
As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like.
And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody.
I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences.
And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
That´s exactly the problem with the New Testament. First, who said we need another bible, then who decided what books go into that bible and third, who authorised what was allowed to say in that bible and what wasn't. Since the church became a Roman church things changed dramatically for the Christians including persecuting everyone who wasn't church politically correct.
The Roman Empire was given to Holy Mother Church. Refer to the Book of Daniel and the explanation of Dr. Taylor Marshall: Eternal City.
@@maryloudascoli I had a quick look into it. Unfortunately in the video he only speaks about his book. Is there anywhere we can hear more about it. I’m a bit confused about him where exactly he stands because other videos of his I watched seems to indicate that although he is believer in the Catholic Church he rejects the current papacy. But was the papacy ever any force for good?
We trust it because it's so close so that we know error hasn't crept in, yet there was already erring in the churches at Corinth and Galatia. Okay. This reasoning is a lot of circular argumentation. Dr Thomas Smyth wrote a book about this in the 1800s. Highly suggested.
Also, just read the Book of Concord, as well as the Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz already.
Check out book The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyerp
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
- Pope Saint Gregory the Great - defender of Orthodoxy (or as he is known in the Orthodox Church, Saint Gregory the Dialogist; Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
Isn’t the first recorded prayer to Mary in the 3rd century?
Update; I’m still waiting for some to explain to me how this isn’t a concern.
What an awesome video. So informative!
Hmm. The title to this video is either misleading or completely untrue. The early church did not insist on unleavened bread, did not forbid priests from marrying, did not declare the Pope as the leader of the entire church, did not include the filioque in the Creed - just to name a few. It is in fact the Catholic Church that split off from The Original Church to follow their own path.
What is wrong with people who volunteer themselves to be priests staying celibate and what is wrong with having one person leading the church. Do you know any practices the early church did that the church still does today?
1) Matter of discipline and tradition 2) Matter of discipline and tradition 3) St Ignatius and St Peter 4) No issue
Neither did they have the term Trinity. But the seed was there.
The departure was in 70 A.D., and I think it was a debate over the sacraments playing a role in idolatry. If memory serves...
@@maryloudascoli Matt 3:13-14 and Luke 23:46.
Both speak of trinity!!!
Please stop presenting evangelical theology as historic Protestant theology.
It is always discouraging to me, when I see Romans do it. I don´t have many Romans around in my area to talk to, so it´s always sad when I see the majority of them present this caricature online.
We should come together in the spirit of truth!
As Lutherans we have adressed this so often, that I don´t know what to do.
@@GermanFreakvb21 :
The only Roman's alive today are those people who live in the city of Rome, Italy.
As far as we know as an orthodox faithful all ecumenical councils were held in the East not the West. Christianity begins in the East not in the West. Rome is alone in the West. Meanwhile, the Christian Orthodox in the East are still one and in communion
Yes, because in the early church the Bishop's were the husband of one wife, there were no priests, no infant baptism, no rosary beads, no pope, no cardinals, no indulgences, no veneration of Mary, saints, or angels, no latin mass, and the early church had an entirely different eschatology that was premillennial and literal. Oh yeah, the allegorists were not tolerated either.
Reading the book now. Fantastic to have
The early church was Catholic (within the literal meaning of the word), but not Roman Catholic.
In Ezekiel, "In the sprinkling of water upon you." Which water? Just natural water, or was it the living water from the Spirit of God?
"Baptism now saves you." Please, read the ENTIRE passage in 1Peter 3:21.
Is the baptism that God requires solely a ceremonial baptism of natural water, which can only remove dirt from the flesh; or is it what God is targeting, concerning the living water given by the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
All of this is an example of how teachings get derailed from what God is intending to convey. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, which can easily become a particular church's doctrine.
The Church is Catholic. ROMAN Catholic is signifying the WESTERN Church or the Latin Rite. The term "Roman Church", when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome. Roman Catholics may be simply defined as Christians in communion with the pope. The Catholic Church is comprised of East and West. There's 24 rites in the Catholic Church in union with the Pope.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG
Any church that has its foundation on the apostles and prophets, having Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone, and is Holy Spirit-filled, is His earthly church.
All those who are born again, born from above, and sealed with the Holy Spirit are His true bride that we read about in 2 Peter 2:9. This is God's universal church, as He sees it from His eyes.
@@dannisivoccia2712 Yes, the Catholic church was founded on the apostles, by the apostles, and has Christ as king over all. The Catholic church has apostolic succession, whereas protestant denominations do not.
@@dannisivoccia2712 If you think that is Pastor Bob from 35th Gateway Evangelical Bible Church of Christ is an anyway on the same level as the valid succession of the papacy and the magisterium of the Church you're grossly mistaken dude. There is numerous ecclesiastical documents that empirically show theologically and historically that the Church from its very Foundation was a hierarchy with a governing magisterium that had not only valid succession from the apostles handed down but seven sacraments. Jesus did not give us a Bible, he gave us a Church with an actual papacy and ordained priesthood to bind and loose on top of a missionary priesthood.. But if you want to show me how the early Christians preached five Solas please go ahead and show all of us.
The official name of Christ's Bride is "The Church". The term "Roman" was a pejorative name given to the Catholic Church. The official name is, and always has been "The Church". The Church had kept the descriptive word "Roman" to differentiate itself from other churches that use "catholic" (some protestant denominations use "catholic" as well). Roman Catholic describes the Latin Rite, aka, the Western Rite. Different from the Eastern Rite Catholic church, aka Oriental Catholic church, which are in full communion with the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church
Where can I find that image in the thumbnail?
Joe is confused at the end. The second century text that says all must agree with the Roman church is from Irenaeus of Lyons not Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius does say some stuff useful for discussion on Rome. He says that Rome presides in love (or over the love feast I’ve heard). He also says that Smyrna now has Jesus Christ and Rome’s love for their bishop as they had no bishop.
How does Orthodoxy fit into this?
From my understanding orthodoxy is a schism, not a heresy in the way that protestantism is. This video is about protestant objections to catholicism. Orthodox still have the sacraments and priests but they are not in full communion with Rome and the pope. So they are closer to us catholics than the protestants who don't have a priesthood and only have baptism as a sacrament. For protestants it's mostly based on the Bible and their own personal interpretation of the Bible rather than on the church fathers and what they had to say concerning the Bible and biblical interpretation. To talk about orthodoxy would be for another video as the catholic-protestant rift is an altogether different topic than the catholic-orthodox schism. I actually don't know as much about the orthodox but my understanding is that the schism happened more for political reasons while for protestants they were having more theological objections to the faith, wanting scripture alone, faith alone, etc.
What @Marie Munzar said, and also that the Orthodox church still has apostolic succession - it's a schism not a doctrinal revolution. Orthodoxy has the sacraments, and even most of the same theological points (from my reading and understanding of the Orthodox church). The main differences are in the church structure - head Bishop in Rome vs multiple Patriarchs - and their position on the Filioque, being three controversial words in the Catholic version of the Apostles Creed. Whilst the Orthodox church is not in communion with the Roman church, it still maintains a solid tradition.
Aside from a few things, the churches are very similar. It is like the speaker in the video said: [on reading Ignatius of Antioch] - the Orthodox Christians would agree with all of his writings, apart from the couple of pages talking about the Bishop of Rome. We are mostly the same, but many Catholic and Orthodox dogmatics will assert that the other church is abject heresy, which I can't find to be the case.
@@niconiconiick6979 ah thanks very much for this clarification.
Orthodox dont give primacy to Peter
@@niconiconiick6979 The problem is that they denied Peter in their apostolic succession, for them Peter was just an apostle how others and a bishop like others, also of Antioch and other places, not the specifically one where Christ build his Church. And think about that Jesus calls Simon, Peter the rock, at Cause of his future mission to build the Church...
I really wish sometimes you guys wouldn't throw all protestants into the same camp on certain issues. A great deal of protestants truly believe that Christ is there at the Eucharist, or that baptism is essential for salvation.
You are right, of course, because there are so many denominations of Protestantism and they all have varying beliefs.
As far as I know, many believe that Christ is only present in a Spiritual sense, whereas Catholics know that the priest's words of consecration effect a transubstantiation, whereby the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ.
The different denominations appear to hold different interpretations of Baptism.
He cant go through the 1000s of variations of Protestants.
@@alhilford2345The Eucharistic Wafer is still the Eucharistic Wafer but the SUBSTANCE. CHANGES, it becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ✝️ in the Holy Eucharist, and that is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
As much as I love your show Matt and appreciate the work you're doing, It's not really true that the Early Church was Catholic in the sense implied in the video. The Church has always been Catholic (and it still is) but it wasn't its first important characteristic. It was first of all Apostolic and the early fathers made a distinction between Orthodox teachings and heretical teachings. The Orthodox Church is the first, catholic and apostolic Church. Peace! ❤
Your infallible declaration that you and you alone can declare orthodoxy as the one true church is either Protestant or self serving.
That's seems right to me: to say the early church was catholic may be true, but to say it's the same as the Catholic church today may not necessarily follow.
@@joshuaracey7967 My Jewish mother would respond ‘oi vay’. The pope is equivalent to the king’s key holder. Read the Old Testament.
Please don't be patronizing,@@maryloudascoli. You are better than that.
As an example of of early theology being different than later theology is the eucharist. It started out as a sacrifice of Thanksgiving then turned into a sacrifice of Christ's body. Protestants point out from Hebrews that Christ was sacrificed once for all time. Rather than allowing this view the catholic church anathematized it in the council of Trent.
I would slightly counter that they were Orthodox, but that is splitting hairs. :)
True the church was Catholic and Orthodox in its teachings. Unfortunately the Roman legalism and late developments of dogma has made it the workings of man and has fallen into the same mistakes of the pharisees. Example: indulgences and.papel infallibility when it comes to dogma. How can one pope say one thing and the heretic Francis says another.
"infallibility when it comes to dogma. How can one pope say one thing and the heretic Francis says another." You forgot to mention Ex cathedra, which counters this phrase... the last ex cathedra, which states the dogma, was said over 70 years ago. So that explains why Francis is contradicting Popes before him.
Same way, how a doctor give a wrong disgnosis, while a well studied doctor says the correct one? The medicine is a lie? no.
Now i dont understand what by "pharisee" you meant, for example, for indulgences. The first thousand years priests confessed and gifted penitences to the confessed ones. Any applied penitence, as simplier it would be, give indulgences. Garanteeded by free or just consequence of the act, if you want to understand that way. A prayer alone give indulgence. A obedience during the temptation is an indulgence...
But surprise, surprise... centuries later, some bad-intentioned bishops made them as "sold places in heaven"... thats why traditionals put laws to forbbiden the practice of selling heaven.
Christ's church was Christian, not Catholic.
@@sammygomes7381the original Greek for Acts 9:31 and the early church fathers who referred to the church as Catholic in their writings would beg to differ.
@@art3misxp784 Acts 9:31 does not refer to a Catholic church nor could it as it was still hundreds of years away. Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
In the book of Revelation Jesus adresses 7 churches that were already established by the apostles. This was hundreds of years before the establishment of the Catholic Church.
In Acts 2: 42-47 They (Christians) devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, and to the fellowship , to the BREAKING OF THE BREAD and to PRAYER= this is the Holy Eucharist done by the first Christians which meant they were Catholics.
Where do you find the Word Catholic in that ? 🤔😎
You add what matches your belief. Why???🤔😎❤
@@tomrudolsen6235that’s all they do ADD and make assumptions. They have no Holy Ghost and completely misinterprete the word and constantly brag about compiling the Bible and don’t understand one scripture
Exactly. The docs from the first 200 yrs convinced me my Protestantism was on shaky ground. My vol. 1 of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers is underlined like crazy.
I read in a comment this: "The Bible does not say that Mary is Mother of God because God is Eternal, he is creator" - So, can someone tell me how JESUS CHRIST arrived in our world in order to save us ? How did he take BODY? How could he DIE ON the CROSS and thus SAVE US? Please can someone help me??
It’s a great book!
Protestants give themselves permission and authority to interpret scripture to their views and opinions and condemn others for not agreeing with their views and opinions
Very smart toughts .. thank You for your share. God bless You and yours !
quote----Protestants give themselves permission and authority to interpret scripture to their views and opinions and condemn others for not agreeing with their views and opinions... unquote
So, when I quote the BIBLE, is that MY interpretation?????
----Is this my interpretation?
Exodus 20:3-17
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
3 you shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol,
whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God,
punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments.>>>
Is this my interpretation????
Exodus 20:8-11
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
>>>>>Was that MY interpretation?? DIRECT quotes FROM the Bible!! AND a Catholic at that!!!!!
An |nterpretation is when someone tries to explain it more than the Bible does!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293
And you prove my point you give yourself permission and authority to preach to me
@@martinmartin1363 ---quote---And you prove my point you give yourself permission and authority to preach to me.. unquote
That means to me that you will NOT even listen to anyone that talks about the Bible. I reply to comments on the videos!!! By that fact, makes it okay to reply!!! If you DO NOT want replies--DO NOT comment to the video--or to me!!!
IT IS AN OPEN FORUM!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293
I have the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and you give yourself permission and authority
The early church was 100% orthodox. Catholic teaching and dogma has changed far more than orthodox over the past two thousand years.
Really? The Orthodox have changed their stance on Divorce and contriception.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I heard the use of the word Orthodox to describe the churches of the East was first used at the schism in 1054. I do know title Catholic Church was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD in his letter the church in Smyrna. Thanks.
I always thought that the church began at Pentecost. If that is the case ,then the church would have been Pentecostal, as every one in that upper room were baptized. In the Holy Spirit. That’s what a Pentecostal is. The church was born of the Holy Spirit, endured with the power to be witnesses for the Gospel. Being Pentecostal is more than a denomination. It literally means being baptized ,emerged in the Spirit of God. Anyone having been baptized in the Holy Spirit knows inside what I’m talking about. You can be any denomination and be baptized in the Holy Ghost and you know it! Not just a ceremony.
LOL - I see no one is touching this comment with a 10ft pole! I have an uncle that's Pentacostal and a close personal friend who is too. They are "gifted" in ways undemonstrated across other denominations, that I can attest. There is something to it, IMHO. My friend, who grew up in the same denomination as me, "sees" the Holy Spirit in me, and I have been the recipient of physically evident miracles (impossible weather alterations). She would like me to become Pentacostal, but I have discovered hesitation in that too, mostly because I don't fit their description of "being filled with the Holy Spirit," nor do I care for the absence of interpreters as recommended in the book of Acts and the elevation of spiritual gifts listed in Galatians. My friend and I have a unique acceptance of each other and most of the time we are spot on/aligned in our scriptural understanding. Therefore, I think the Bible still transcends truth beyond specific organizations and God's work is being completed in ways we are not always ready/willing to accept due to organizational history and policy. I guess "doctrine" would be the proper term here.
I've never seen miracles channel through anyone that has not been full body emersed in baptism AFTER repentance/salvation. Therefore, the churches can argue all they want about who is the first church, the true church, the "right" church, and so on... I have seen the hand of God at work in ways proportional to the "impossible" ways they've been performed throughout the Bible, and the work God has done through me, or will do through me, is simply here for all to hear as I bear witness for Him. God is personal, not just a church, meaning that the church a person chooses should not be seen as a template for self-righteous argument or spiritual reproof. "The Church" is all those who make up the Bride of Christ, not a building or specific denomination.
All churches... managed by the hands of humans... are flawed. The church, like us, will not be perfected until we are caught up in Christ.
@@kennethgoin628 I Hi Ken ; Just an historical fact. My thought and hope was not to prove anything ,but that the Christian church today use those same gifts in every church,every denomination .That Jesus be glorified!
@@kenkeil9067 Amen!
What was the reference about "baptism saves you"
1st Peter 3:21
The original Church is 100% Catholic and Apostolic. Just as it says in the Nicene Creed. But CERTAINLY NOT the Catholic Church that we see today. Because due to the Great Schism, when Rome and the pontiff insisted on their superiority, they left the Original Church. An act which alone is Overly Prideful (the Greatest Sin). And the West's separation from the Original Church was exposed for evil by it's adoption of pedophilia, homosexuality and the all too common acceptance of worldly values that run rapidly throughout the top of it's hierarchy. So for those who don't know, the Orthodox Church is the Original Church. Took a long time for me to uncover this, but by the Grace of GOD I now know the Truth. This is why the Eastern Churches are still producing Great Modern-Day Saints. Everyone who wishes to represent the life of Christ should study the lives of the Fathers and Elders on Mount Athos in Greece, Valaam Monasteries in Russia and the many Holy Saints throughout the Eastern European Churches and Monasteries. They teach and Introduce us to True Piety and Spiritual living that absolutely inspires great faith. May GOD Bless You All!
Every church has people in its ranks that are ungodly. For example, your beloved Orthodox Church has bishops that support Russia’s brutality in Ukraine. The difference is that leaders of the Catholic Church can denounce and excommunicate those priests and bishops who sexually abuse others and seek worldly desires, whereas no such structure exists in the Orthodox Church.
@@feeeshmeister4311 every man who lives not by the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Orthodox, Jew, Catholic and atheist alike, is deemed Unrighteous in the Eyes of GOD. And we will ALL be judged for our unrepentant sins, regardless of who we pledge allegiance to. But this does not change the fact that the Catholic Church is not the Original Bride of Christ.
@@earlyates2350 Do you have any proof of that, historical or otherwise? Because the Catholic Church has plenty.
@@feeeshmeister4311 the basic proof is the existence of the five patriarchs charged with leading the Original Church of Jesus Christ before the Great Schism. And I will remind you that as it was during the ecumenical councils, starting with the first in Nicaea charged by Emperor Constantine, none of these church representatives had individual authority over the others, but represented their respective regions throughout the world. The five locations were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that time there was no Pope, therefore there was no church based on Catholicism. You also have Modern-Day Saints throughout the Orthodox Church, like St Piaosis, St Porphyrios and St Joseph the Hesycast, whose lives are proof of the lineage of the Original Church. There's videos about the life of each on UA-cam that I recommend you watch My Brother. It's a level of devotion to Christ that every person who desires to be Christian should see and know about. They're examples of the power of GOD that one can possess when we're truly devoted to our faith. But due to the fact that both you and I are simple layman, I suggest you watch this for a more comprehensive explanation. It's not very long. ua-cam.com/video/OinVI39Ky4M/v-deo.html
May GOD Bless You FeeeshMeister
@@earlyates2350 :
Surely you know that it was the "Orthodox" people who broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!
That is a historical fact.
Orthodoxy is the true Catholic Church.
IC XC NIKA
Yes. Praying for the Restoration of Traditional Latin Mass in the Roman rite of Catholic church
The original Church is 100% Catholic and Apostolic. Just as it says in the Nicene Creed. But CERTAINLY NOT the Catholic Church that we see today. Because due to the Great Schism, when Rome and the pontiff insisted on their superiority, they left the Original Church. An act which alone is Overly Prideful (the Greatest Sin). And the West's separation from the Original Church was exposed for evil by it's adoption of pedophilia, homosexuality and the all too common acceptance of worldly values that run rapidly throughout the top of it's hierarchy. So for those who don't know, the Orthodox Church is the Original Church. Took a long time for me to uncover this, but by the Grace of GOD I now know the Truth. This is why the Eastern Churches are still producing Great Modern-Day Saints. Everyone who wishes to represent the life of Christ should study the lives of the Fathers and Elders on Mount Athos in Greece, Valaam Monasteries in Russia and the many Holy Saints throughout the Eastern European Churches and Monasteries. They teach and Introduce us to True Piety and Spiritual living that absolutely inspires great faith. May GOD Bless You All!
We can see the truth working out in Ukraine
@@jacksoncastelino04 which period of tradition is the right one? 100-500? 1200-1565? 1565-1965?
Flat out, Protestantism is a heresy where they create their own version of Jesus and his Church. Some may go as far as to say it is idolatry of creating their own version of God that fits their thinking instead of it being the other way around.
actually no. Don't be so in a hurry to call anything apart from RC is a heresy. You have to understand this errors can come and have come into churches and some have been eradicated and some have stayed inside the church. Now you can not say Roman Catholic Church were all pure and no errors had come in. Now Luther protested against those errors.
@@imunzni7069 RC contains the fullness of the truth. That, however, does not mean it is without fault, for no human being is faultless. So there are many faults in the RCC on a human level. However, the distinction between human errors and divine truth is an important one. Heresy is defined (and I paraphrase here a lot) as one has intentionally separated itself from the truth. It is not a status applied easily. One is given many chances to come back to the faith and re-confirm the truth of the Church. They have to be made aware of their fault, given chances, etc... From what I understand, this is a fairly extensive process. When they still reject this after all that time and effort by the Church to bring them into the folds, they are declared as heretics. So no, I don't say it lightly. There are many Protestants who I don't think are heretics because of the simple fact many have been lied to about the RCC and have gross misconceptions. Yes, there were errors in the Church Luther protested against. But it is naive to believe his protesting was purely on theological issues. Either way, if you see a problem in the Church, you work to resolve it from INSIDE the Church. Luther's fault was separating himself from it. That gave birth to now over 40,000 Protestant denominations where everyone disagrees and ends up founding their own churches.
Funny how you claim this, yet the Catholic church is a proven departure from the church of Antioch in 70 A.D. Per this historical departure, who then is creating their own "Jesus?"
@@kennethgoin628 I am not familiar with it. Please state and briefly explain your claim on this "proven" departure.
@@tomcha75 Here is an example of the departure of the word of God as the following statement does not have one biblical truth in it.
Catechism of the Catholic church 966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
who was the first trinitarian of them?
Love your content. There’s my comment. Shirt and sweet. Just like me. Ok. The short part is accurate. Thanks for sharing.
Nonsense!
Heschmeyer is right!!!
@@johnyang1420 No, the early church was orthodox.
@@alexandermarkus9587 :
History proves otherwise.
@@alhilford2345 No, I studied church history.
At this point in time, with all the scriptural, historical and archaeological sources and evidence we have to verify what the Early Church (the Catholic Church, the Church: Matthew 16:18) believed I don't know what still holds protestant from Catholicism except pride or being of bad faith (no pun intended). I mean even among those who admitted or recognized it there're still plenty that stubbornly stay in their denial. Then there are also those who know better than the Apostles or the Church Fathers themselves... those are doomed to eternal wandering. Pray for all these people, they need it the most because they clearly aren't in a state of Invincible Ignorance.
Catholism always TRYING TO OWN SALVATION and control WHO get the word of God. IT won't work. Catholism have a FALSE ACCURSED DOCTRINE and another GOSPEL altogether
Protestants came out of apostate Roman catholic church for their false teaching.For this they were burn at the stake.Historians estimate that in the middle ages and early reformation era more than 50,000,000 million martyrs perished at the hands of the papacy.When view from historical facts and the prophecies of the Bible, the catholic church is an organization of the anti-Christ which has destroyed all the truths of God.Paganized christianity by accepting all kinds of pagan gods and made numerous souls worship Satan not God.The inquisition was the most infamous and Devilish thing in human history.It was devised by popes and used by them for 500 years to maintain their power.The popes have created their own earthly church here on earth.The catholic church is not the church Jesus built on the Rock. The church of Christ are all born again believers and subject (submitted) unto Him and not to the pope..!
Whoever reads this, don't be so fast to label me a heretic, but this what I know by speaking to An Eastern Orthodox Priest and literal historical truth. In the beginning, the 1st true Church was set up by Jesus, the Head Authority and leader of what would later be five patriarchs (Head Bishops). of the Eastern Orthodox Church. the Christian church is governed by the heads of the five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarch had authority over their parish, campus, or Church under Christ's teachings. What happened was this. Rome decided to depart from the the other four churches and the Bishop of Rome was elevated to a more authority position and became known as the Pope as we know today. The other four Churches knew this was a separation from the Eastern Orthodox which caused the great schism of 1054. Conflict between the 4 Churches and Rome caused the division.
Peter was not the first Pope, but the caretaker and steward of the Church of Jerusalem. Later on as the 1st Church (The Eastern Orthodox) expanded a head patriarch (Bishop) were appointed to lead each of the 5 churches--similar to how Eastern Orthodox Churches operate today. Each Orthodox Church has their own patriarch, but they are under Jesus infalable authority.
Now some will say the word "Catholic: is used even in the Orthodox Church, but notice they never said Roman Catholic. Catholic simply means "Universal" in this case Christ's Universal Church. Roman Catholic simply is saying the other 4 Churches under Eastern Orthodox are false which isn't true at all.
Roman Catholics did to the Eastern Orthodox the same thing that they accuse Martin Luther of doing in the Great Reformation.
As Christians, we cannot simply say well Roman Catholics are right and therefore all Protestant denominations are wrong. I'm a firm believer that some protestant denominations are as apostate as Roman Catholics are. Some Protestant denominations do it better than other protestant denominations, but if you really want to look into the historical evidence and fact you'll find that Eastern Orthodox Church is by far the oldest and Church and the closest to what the original church looked like.
And to you Eastern Orthodox, I am no way saying you are better than everybody else. I'm simply stating that in terms of unchanged traditions, your church is the closest one to how the Apostles ran it. There can indeed be apostate doctrines in Eastern Orthodox too. I have some reservations regarding the theology. So you don't get a pass saying you are better than everybody.
I am in no way saying all Roman Catholic doctrine is wrong. I mean, truthfully a lot of it is wrong especially when it comes to extra biblical doctrine like purgatory and indulgences.
And to the protestants, don't think for one second I am shaming. You guys really stepped up in preaching the gospel and you pointed out the heresy of the Catholic Church wanting the reform, but Roman Catholics decided not to.
Contrary is the case
The more I learn about the early church, the more protestant I become
@@goyonman9655 And what about real presence in the Eucharist, hierarchy of priesthood, explaining the scriptures within the Church and primacy of Rome? Church Fathers and early sources are clear about them, so you believe in these truths and remain protestant? Or you deny truths known to the early Church?
literally everything he said here is not exclusive to catholicism, as a Lutheran, i feel perfectly comfortable with all this
Ya but it does rule out most of the non catholic denomination
@@kevinfernandez9999 but it doesn’t live up to the video’s title
The Lutheran church lacks apostelic succession, thus going against scripture.
Do you feel comfortable in a church by a mad man heretic who was excommunicated.
Why do you belong to a false church started by a man vs belonging to the Catholic Church started by the God man Jesus Christ?
Just curious....
@@quiricomazarin476 why does it sound like you’re taking pleasure in calling Lutheran’s heretics? If you think we’re destined for hell, should not it sadden you?
If by catholic you mean universal, that’s true until 1054 when the Romans decided to split the church
It was the constantinople patriarch who split.
So the claim the title made was that the early church was 100% Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic, yet the video didn’t provide any sort of sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
It also didn’t touch on the fact that assuming the early church was Catholic how do we know they didn’t make a mistake? Simply because it was early how is it truer?
Read book The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyer
Deus Vult❤🔥